Patient and Provider Views on Psychosocial Screening in a Comprehensive Diabetes Center.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Brodar KE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8938639 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient and Provider Views on Psychosocial Screening in a Comprehensive Diabetes Center.
Brodar Kaitlyn E KE La Greca Annette M AM Leite Rafael O RO Marchetti Daniella D Jaramillo Manuela M Luzuriaga Maria M Garg Rajesh R Saab Patrice P
Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings 20220322 1
Guidelines recommend routinely screening adults with diabetes for psychological concerns, but few diabetes clinics have adopted screening procedures. This study assessed patient and provider perspectives regarding the role of mental health in diabetes care, psychosocial screening procedures, and patients' support needs. Patients with diabetes (n = 15; 73.3% type 2) and their medical providers (n = 11) participated in qualitative interviews. Thematic content analysis was used to categorize result ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOver the past decade, public interest in managing health-related information for personal understanding and self-improvement has rapidly expanded. This study explored aspects of how patient-provided health information could be obtained through an electronic portal and presented to inform and engage patients while also providing information for healthcare providers.MethodsWe invited participants using ResearchMatch from 2 cohorts: (1) self-reported healthy volunteers (no medical conditions) and (2) individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of anxiety and/or depression. Participants used a secure web application (dashboard) to complete the PROMIS® domain survey(s) and then complete a feedback survey. A community engagement studio with 5 healthcare providers assessed perspectives on the feasibility and features of a portal to collect and display patient provided health information. We used bivariate analyses and regression analyses to determine differences between cohorts.ResultsA total of 480 participants completed the study (239 healthy, 241 anxiety and/or depression). While participants from the tw2o cohorts had significantly different PROMIS scores (p < .05), both cohorts welcomed the concept of a patient-centric dashboard, saw value in sharing results with their healthcare provider, and wanted to view results over time. However, factors needing consideration before widespread use included personalization for the patient and their health issues, integration with existing information (eg electronic health records), and integration into clinician workflow.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrated a strong desire among healthy people, patients with chronic diseases, and healthcare providers for a self-assessment portal that can collect patient-reported outcome metrics and deliver personalized feedback.
| S-EPMC6213079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low dose CT (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is an evidence-based, guideline recommended, and Medicare approved test but uptake requires further study. We therefore conducted patient and provider surveys to elucidate factors associated with utilization. Patients referred for LDCT at an academic medical center were questioned about their attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs on lung cancer screening. Adherent patients were defined as those who met screening eligibility criteria and completed a LDCT. Referring primary care providers within this same medical system were surveyed in parallel about their practice patterns, attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about screening. Eighty patients responded (36%), 48 of whom were adherent. Among responders, non-Hispanic patients (p = 0.04) were more adherent. Adherent respondents believed that CT technology is accurate and early detection is useful, and they trusted their providers. A majority of non-adherent patients (79%) self-reported an intention to obtain a LDCT in the future. Of 36 of 87 (41%) responding providers, only 31% knew the correct lung cancer screening eligibility criteria, which led to a 37% inappropriate referral rate from 2013 to 2015. Yet, 75% had initiated lung cancer screening discussions, 64% thought screening was at least moderately effective, and 82% were interested in learning more of the 33 providers responding to these questions. Overall, patients were motivated and providers engaged to screen for lung cancer by LDCT. Non-adherent patient "procrastinators" were motivated to undergo screening in the future. Additional follow through on non-adherence may enhance screening uptake, and raising awareness for screening eligibility through provider education may reduce inappropriate referrals.
| S-EPMC5304233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:eHealth has grown exponentially alongside technology and has become widely accessed by some populations, but little is documented about how undergraduate students use eHealth or perceive their eHealth literacy. As access to online information and non-traditional options for interacting with providers has increased, patient views of the provider-patient relationship may also be changing. This study evaluates how frequently undergraduates use eHealth, how they perceive their ability to use eHealth appropriately, and how they view their patient-provider relationships. A mixed methods approach was used to address the research questions, with quantitative data from a survey and qualitative data from follow-up interviews of twelve of the survey respondents. The survey was distributed to over 650 undergraduate students in introductory biology laboratory courses for students of all fields of interest at one university. Based on 527 survey responses and 12 interviews, students reported commonly using eHealth but being skeptical of telehealth appointments. Although students generally felt capable of finding and interpreting eHealth sources, they were not strongly confident in their ability to do so. Use of eHealth was not seen as altering the patient-provider relationship, but students expressed a desire for their physician to act more as a counselor or advisor than a guardian. Students from minority populations were more likely to use eHealth in comparison to their peers. In addition, student comfort with their provider differed by race and ethnicity, as well as whether they shared the same gender identity as their provider. This research highlights how undergraduate students, who are often making medical decisions for themselves for the first time as adults, access health information and view the patient-provider relationship differently than the traditional guardian or paternalistic model. In addition, having diverse, culturally competent medical providers are critical for students to develop the relationship with their provider that they desire.
| S-EPMC9009692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Addressing hazardous drinking during medical-surgical care improves patients' health. This formative evaluation examined patients' consideration of options to change drinking and engage in treatment. It explored whether interventions such as "DO-MoST" overcome treatment barriers. We interviewed 20 medical-surgical patients with hazardous drinking in a trial of DO-MoST, and 16 providers. Analyses used a directed content approach. Patients were receptive to and comfortable discussing drinking during medical-surgical care. Interventions like DO-MoST (patient-centered, motivational approach to shared decision making) addressed some treatment barriers. Patients and providers viewed such interventions as helpful by building a relationship with a psychologist who facilitated self-awareness of drinking behaviors, and discussing connections between alcohol- and physical health-related problems and potential strategies to address drinking. However, both groups expressed concerns about individual and system-level barriers to long-term change. Interventions like DO-MoST bridge the gap between the patient's medical treatment episode and transition to other health care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03258632).
| S-EPMC10035972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe National Essential Medicine System (NEMS) is a new policy launched by the Chinese government in 2009. The effects of its introduction have been widely investigated. However, little research has focused on individual patients' perspectives. The purpose of this study was to examine current understanding and opinions of China's NEMS of primary care providers (PCPs) and patients.MethodsProviders (n = 134) and patients (n = 175) were examined based on self-completed questionnaire surveys conducted in 16 primary healthcare centers in Ningxia, northwestern China. Questions addressed the topics of: participants' socio-demographic characteristics; awareness of NEMS policies; perceptions of NEMS-related changes; satisfactions with NEMS.ResultsThe patients had a low awareness of NEMS while a majority of providers were familiar with NEMS. All participants were satisfied with the price and quality of essential medicines, but not satisfied with the quantity. Patients felt there had been a decrease in their total medical expenses per visit and improved pharmaceutical services. Most providers perceived no change in their personal or departmental income. The overall satisfaction rate related to NEMS among providers and patients was 92.54 and 93.31%, respectively. Overall there was a link between knowledge about NEMS and satisfaction with the program: patients who had greater knowledge of reimbursement policy, and the providers with greater knowledge of NEMS, reported higher satisfaction.ConclusionsThe findings revealed a high level of satisfaction towards NEMS among primary care providers and patients, which is a reflection of the improvements in the health care system. However, some patients' low awareness of NEMS should be paid attention to, as it could reduce their knowledge of essential medicines and hinder the full potential of NEMS.
| S-EPMC4729152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies have examined how different qualities and modes (face-to-face vs electronic) of patient-provider communication (PPC) influence cancer screening uptake. Our objective was to determine whether receiving a breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is influenced by (1) qualities of face-to-face and (2) the use of e-mail PPC. We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4, cycles 1 to 4 data. To assess qualities of face-to-face PPC, adults reported how often physicians spent enough time with them, explained so they understood, gave them a chance to ask questions, addressed feelings and emotions, involved them in decisions, confirmed understanding, and helped them with uncertainty. Adults reported whether they used e-mail PPC. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the odds of receiving cancer screenings based on face-to-face and e-mail PPC. Adults whose health-care providers involved them in decision-making had highest odds of receiving breast (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.71), cervical (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06-1.60), and colorectal (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03-1.51) cancer screenings. No significant associations were observed between e-mail PPC and cancer screenings. More research is needed to explore this association.
| S-EPMC7786660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe use of integrative approaches for symptom management is highly prevalent among patients undergoing cancer treatment and among cancer survivors and is increasingly endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. However, access to and implementation of integrative oncology (IO) approaches are hindered by barriers at multiple levels, including logistic, geographic, financial, organizational, and cultural barriers. The goal of this mixed-method study was to examine oncology provider and patient knowledge, beliefs, and preferences in IO to identify facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for implementation of IO modalities.Materials and methodsData sources included patient surveys and provider semistructured interviews. Patients were in active treatment (n = 100) and survivors (n = 100) of heterogeneous cancer types. Patient and survivor surveys interrogated: (1) interest in types of IO approaches; and (2) preferences for delivery modality, frequency, and location. Providers (n = 18) were oncologists and nurse navigators working with diverse cancer types. Interviews queried their knowledge of and attitudes about IO, about their patients' needs for symptom management, and for recommendations for implementation of IO approaches in their clinic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to systematically analyze provider interviews.ResultsThe primary interests reported among actively treated patients and survivors were massage therapy, acupuncture, and wellness/exercise. Most patients expressed interest in both group and individual sessions and in telehealth or virtual reality options. Emergent themes from provider interviews identified barriers and facilitators to implementing IO approaches in both the internal and external settings, as well as for the implementation process.ConclusionThe emphasis on mind-body interventions as integrative rather than alternative highlights the importance of interventions as evidence-based, comprehensive, and integrated into health care. Gaining simultaneous perspectives from both patients and physicians generated insights for the implementation of IO care into complex clinical systems within a comprehensive cancer center.
| S-EPMC9372903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Measurement-based care (MBC) in mental health improves patient outcomes and is a component of many national guidelines for mental healthcare delivery. Nevertheless, MBC is not routinely integrated into clinical practice. Several known reasons for the lack of integration exist but one lesser explored variable is the subjective perspectives of providers and patients about MBC. Such perspectives are critical to understand facilitators and barriers to improve the integration of MBC into routine clinical practice. Aims This study aimed to uncover the perspectives of various stakeholders towards MBC within a single treatment centre. Method Researchers conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 15), family members (n = 7), case managers (n = 8) and psychiatrists (n = 6) engaged in an early-psychosis intervention programme. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by critical realist theory. Results Analysis converged on several themes. These include (a) implicit negative assumptions; (b) relevance and utility to practice; (c) equity versus flexibility; and (d) shared decision-making. Providers assumed patients’ perspectives of MBC were negative. Patients’ perspectives of MBC were actually favourable, particularly if MBC was used as an instrument to engage patients in shared decision-making and communication rather than as a dogmatic and rigid clinical decision tool. Conclusions This qualitative study presents the views of various stakeholders towards MBC, providing an in-depth examination of the barriers and facilitators to MBC through qualitative investigation. The findings from this study should be used to address the challenges organisations have experienced in implementing MBC.
| S-EPMC8485347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile a number of studies have explored patient- and provider-related factors contributing to quality of care, few studies have explored the role of technology in improving quality and optimizing patient-provider communication. This study explores the use of an interactive patient-provider software platform (IPSP) at a single institution. Specifically, we compared: (1) patient satisfaction scores, (2) complication rates, and (3) readmission rates before and after the use of an IPSP on patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty.Material and methodsA retrospective review was performed on all total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients who completed a Press Ganey survey at a single institution between the years 2014 and 2017. Primary outcomes included Press Ganey patient satisfaction scores and 90-day complication and readmission rates. Mann-Whitney U testing and chi-squared analyses were conducted to assess continuous and categorical variables, respectively.ResultsAnalysis revealed an improvement in median Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (89 vs 97) and Hospital for Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores (9 vs 10; P < .001) between pre-IPSP and post-IPSP. There was a decrease in 90-day complication rates (17.3 vs 11.2%; P = .035) but no decrease in readmission rates (0.30 vs 0.18%, P = .322) between the 2 time points.ConclusionsThe use of an IPSP proved instrumental in improving patient satisfaction and lowering 90-day complication rates at a single institution. The implementation of an IPSP may prove beneficial to arthroplasty surgeons and health-care institutions alike seeking to optimize the quality of care. Larger multicenter studies are necessary to validate the results of the present study.
| S-EPMC6470365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA demonstration project in Richmond, Virginia involved patients and other stakeholders in the creation of a research agenda on dietary and behavioral management of diabetes and hypertension. Given the impact of these diseases on morbidity and mortality, considerable research has been directed at the challenges patients face in chronic disease management. The continuing need to understand disparities and find evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes has been fruitful, but disparities and unmet needs persist.MethodsThe Stakeholder Engagement in Question Development (SEED) method is a stakeholder engagement methodology that combines engagement with a review of available evidence to generate research questions that address current research gaps and are important to patients and other stakeholders. Using the SEED method, patients and other stakeholders participated in research question development through a combination of collaborative, participatory, and consultative engagement. Steps in the process included: (1) identifying the topic and recruiting participants; (2) conducting focus groups and interviews; (3) developing conceptual models; (4) developing research questions; and (5) prioritizing research questions.ResultsStakeholders were involved in the SEED process from February to August 2015. Eighteen questions were prioritized for inclusion in the research agenda, covering diverse domains, from healthcare provision to social and environmental factors. Data analysis took place September to May 2016. During this time, researchers conducted a literature review to target research gaps.ConclusionsThe stakeholder-prioritized, novel research questions developed through the SEED process can directly inform future research and guide the development of evidence that translates more directly to clinical practice.
| S-EPMC6979736 | biostudies-literature