首页> 外文期刊>The journal of asthma >Asthma dissemination around patient-centered treatments in North Carolina (ADAPT-NC): a cluster randomized control trial evaluating dissemination of an evidence-based shared decision-making intervention for asthma management
【24h】

Asthma dissemination around patient-centered treatments in North Carolina (ADAPT-NC): a cluster randomized control trial evaluating dissemination of an evidence-based shared decision-making intervention for asthma management

机译:哮喘传播北卡罗来纳州以患者为中心的治疗方法(Adapt-NC):一组随机对照试验评估传播对哮喘管理的证据的共同决策干预

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To compare three dissemination approaches for implementing an asthma shared decision-making (SDM) intervention into primary care practices. Methods: We randomized thirty practices into three study arms: (1) a facilitator-led approach to implementing SDM; (2) a one-hour lunch-and-learn training on SDM; and (3) a control group with no active intervention. Patient perceptions of SDM were assessed in the active intervention arms using a one-question anonymous survey. Logistic regression models compared the frequency of asthma exacerbations (emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and oral steroid prescriptions) between the three arms. Results: We collected 705 surveys from facilitator-led sites and 523 from lunch-and-learn sites. Patients were more likely to report that they participated equally with the provider in making the treatment decision in the facilitator-led sites (75% vs. 66%, p?=?0.001). Comparisons of outcomes for patients in the facilitator-led (n?=?1,658) and lunch-and-learn (n?=?2,613) arms respectively vs. control (n?=?2,273) showed no significant differences for ED visits (Odds Ratio [OR] [95%CI]?=?0.77[0.57–1.04]; 0.83[0.66–1.07]), hospitalizations (OR [95%CI]?=?1.30[0.59–2.89]; 1.40 [0.68–3.06]), or oral steroids (OR [95%CI]?=0.95[0.79–1.15]; 1.03[0.81–1.06]). Conclusion: Facilitator-led dissemination was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients sharing equally in decision-making with the provider compared to a traditional lunch-and-learn approach. While there was no significant difference in health outcomes between the three arms, the results were most likely confounded by a concurrent statewide asthma initiative and the pragmatic implementation of the intervention. These results offer support for the use of structured approaches such as facilitator-led dissemination of complex interventions into primary care practices.
机译:目的:比较三种传播方法,将哮喘共享决策(SDM)干预置于初级保健实践中。方法:我们将三十种实践随机分为三个研究武器:(1)实施SDM的促进者导向方法; (2)一小时的午餐和学习SDM培训; (3)对照组没有有效干预。使用一个问题匿名调查,在活动干预武器中评估了对SDM的患者感知。 Logistic回归模型与三个臂之间的哮喘加剧(急诊部)访问,住院和口腔类固醇处方的频率进行了比较。结果:从午餐和学习网站收集了从辅导员导向网站和523的705次调查。患者更有可能报告他们与提供者在促进剂导向网站(75%对66%,P?= 0.001)中的治疗决策方面同样参与。促进剂 - LED患者的结果比较(N?= 1,658)和午餐和学习(n?=?2,613)臂,与控制(n?= 2,273)显示ED访问没有显着差异(赔率比[或] [95%ci]?= 0.77 [0.57-1.04]; 0.83 [0.66-1.07],住院(或[95%CI]?=?1.30 [0.59-2.89]; 1.40 [0.68- 3.06])或口服类固醇(或[95%CI] = 0.95 [0.79-1.5]; 1.03 [0.81-1.06])。结论:与传统的午餐和学习方法相比,促进剂导向的传播与提供者相比,与提供者的决策相比同样更高的患者分享。虽然三个武器之间的健康结果没有显着差异,但结果最有可能被同时正常的哮喘倡议和务实执行干预的务实纠纷。这些结果提供了对使用结构化方法,如促进者导向的传播复杂干预措施,以进入初级保健实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号