Search

Background and objective: End‐stage renal disease (ESRD) affects a multitude of aspects in the patient's daily life, often entailing their own involvement in various aspects of the treatment. Although patient participation is a core health‐care value, what the concept signifies is not yet fully known. The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize patient participation in dialysis care, depicting patients' and health‐care professionals' perspectives. Design: This explorative study employed qualitative interviews and content analysis. Setting and participants: Seven focus group discussions engaging 42 key informants were performed, including patients, staff and managers with experience of dialysis care. Results: In dialysis care, patient participation connotes a sharing of information and knowledge, the learning of and planning of care, including partaking in shared decisions with regards to treatment and management, and being involved in the management of one's own health‐care treatment and/or self‐care activities. Although these attributes were illustrated by all stakeholders, their significance varied: patients suggested that their preferences regarding primary aspects of participation vary, while staff considered patients' performance of dialysis to be the ultimate form of participation. Further, while patients considered multiple ways to execute participation, staff suggested that aspects such as sharing information were a route to, rather than actual, involvement. Conclusions: Without a common understanding to denote the idea of patient participation, staff and patients are exposed to a potential deficit in terms of facilitating patient participation in everyday encounters of dialysis treatment. Further studies and means to serve a mutual understanding are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper reports on a 5-year follow-up of a randomized reading intervention in grade 3 in Sweden. An intervention group (n = 57) received daily training for 12 weeks in phoneme/grapheme mapping, reading comprehension and reading speed, whereas a control group (n = 55) participated in ordinary classroom activities. The main aim was to investigate if there were remaining effects of the intervention on reading-related skills. Previous analyses showed that the intervention group performed significantly better than the control group on spelling, reading speed, reading comprehension and phoneme awareness at the immediate post-test with sustained effects 1 year later. Results from the 5-year follow-up show that the only significant difference between the intervention (n = 47) and the control group (n = 37) was on word decoding. There was also a significant interaction effect of group assignment and initial word decoding, in the way that the lowest-performing students benefitted the most from the intervention. Another aim was to examine if the children identified in a screening (n = 2212) as poor readers in grade 2 still performed worse than typical readers. The analyses showed that the typically developing students (n = 66) outperformed the students identified as poor readers in grade 2 on working memory, spelling, reading comprehension and word decoding. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]