Search

Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems., Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)' perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice., Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project., Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients' values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM., Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation., Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s).)

Introduction: Identifying stakeholders' needs is crucial to informing decisions and policy development. This study aims to identify healthcare and social-related needs and effective strategies associated with COVID-19 from the first-person perspectives of patients and healthcare providers., Methods: Cross-sectional online survey design including qualitative open-ended questions, conducted in primary care and hospital settings across Spain, with 12 out of 19 regions represented. Adults aged 18 years and older, who (a) resided in Spain and had a history of COVID-19 or (b) worked as healthcare providers delivering direct or indirect care for people with COVID-19 in Spanish primary care or hospitals during 2020 were eligible to participate. Recruitment was conducted via social-media networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp) and communication channels of key organizations including patient and professional associations and groups. A total of 182 people were invited to complete the surveys and 76 people completed the surveys (71% women), of which 33 were home-isolated patients, 14 were hospitalized patients, 16 were primary care professionals, and 13 were hospital care professionals., Results: A total of 327 needs and 86 effective strategies and positive aspects were identified across surveys and classified into the following overarching themes: (i) Accessibility, (ii) Basic needs, (iii) Clinical care, (iv) Person-and-family centered care, (v) Caring for the healthcare professional, (vi) Protocolization, information, health campaigns, and education, (vii) Resource availability, (viii) and Organizational needs/strategies., Discussion: Findings indicate the Spanish health and social care systems were generally unprepared to combat COVID-19. Implications for research, practice, and policy focus on integrating first-person perspectives as best practice to identify, prioritize and address needs to increase health and social care systems capacity and preparedness, as well as providing well-co-coordinated responses across government, healthcare, and non-government sectors to promote and protect the physical and mental health of all., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Duarte-Díaz, Aparicio Betancourt, Seils, Orrego, Perestelo-Pérez, Barrio-Cortes, Beca-Martínez, Bermejo-Caja and González-González.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed gaps and areas of need in health systems worldwide. This work aims to map the evidence on COVID-19-related healthcare needs of adult patients, their family members, and the professionals involved in their care during the first year of the pandemic. We searched the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Descriptive data were extracted and inductive qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and derive overarching themes. Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria, with the majority reporting needs from the perspective of professionals (35/36). Professionals' needs were grouped into three main clusters (basic, occupational, and psycho-socio-emotional needs); patients' needs into four (basic, healthcare, psycho-socio-emotional, and other support needs); and family members' needs into two (psycho-socio-emotional and communication needs). Transversal needs across subgroups were also identified and grouped into three main clusters (public safety, information and communication, and coordination and support needs). This evidence map provides valuable insight on COVID-19-related healthcare needs. More research is needed to assess first-person perspectives of patients and their families, examine whether needs differ by country or region, and evaluate how needs have evolved over time., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: In recent decades, many self-report instruments have been developed to assess the extent to which patients want to be informed and involved in decisions about their health as part of the concept of person-centred care (PCC). The main objective of this research was to translate, adapt and validate the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) using a sample of primary care health-care professionals in Spain., Methods: Baseline analysis of PPOS scores for 321 primary care professionals (general practitioners and nurses) from 63 centres and 3 Spanish regions participating in a randomized controlled trial. We analysed missing values, distributions and descriptive statistics, item-to-scale correlations and internal consistency. Performed were confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 2-factor model (sharing and caring dimensions), scale depuration and principal component analysis (PCA)., Results: Low inter-item correlations were observed, and the CFA 2-factor model only obtained a good fit to the data after excluding 8 items. Internal consistency of the 10-item PPOS was acceptable (0.77), but low for individual subscales (0.70 and 0.55). PCA results suggest a possible 3-factor structure. Participants showed a patient-oriented style (mean = 4.46, SD = 0.73), with higher scores for caring than sharing., Conclusion: Although the 2-factor model obtained empirical support, measurement indicators of the PPOS (caring dimension) could be improved. Spanish primary care health-care professionals overall show a patient-oriented attitude, although less marked in issues such as patients' need for and management of medical information., (© 2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Virtual communities of practice (vCoPs) facilitate online learning via the exchange of experiences and knowledge between interested participants. Compared to other communities, vCoPs need to overcome technological structures and specific barriers. Our objective was to pilot the acceptability and feasibility of a vCoP aimed at improving the attitudes of primary care professionals to the empowerment of patients with chronic conditions., Methods: We used a qualitative approach based on 2 focus groups: one composed of 6 general practitioners and the other of 6 practice nurses. Discussion guidelines on the topics to be investigated were provided to the moderator. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using the ATLAS-ti software., Results: The available operating systems and browsers and the lack of suitable spaces and time were reported as the main difficulties with the vCoP. The vCoP was perceived to be a flexible learning mode that provided up-to-date resources applicable to routine practice and offered a space for the exchange of experiences and approaches., Conclusions: The results from this pilot study show that the vCoP was considered useful for learning how to empower patients. However, while vCoPs have the potential to facilitate learning and as shown create professional awareness regarding patient empowerment, attention needs to be paid to technological and access issues and the time demands on professionals. We collected relevant inputs to improve the features, content and educational methods to be included in further vCoP implementation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016.

Background: Communities of practice are based on the idea that learning involves a group of people exchanging experiences and knowledge. The e-MPODERA project aims to assess the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice aimed at improving primary healthcare professional attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases., Methods: This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. We will randomly assign 18 primary-care practices per participating region of Spain (Catalonia, Madrid and Canary Islands) to a virtual community of practice or to usual training. The primary-care practice will be the randomization unit and the primary healthcare professional will be the unit of analysis. We will need a sample of 270 primary healthcare professionals (general practitioners and nurses) and 1382 patients. We will perform randomization after professionals and patients are selected. We will ask the intervention group to participate for 12 months in a virtual community of practice based on a web 2.0 platform. We will measure the primary outcome using the Patient-Provider Orientation Scale questionnaire administered at baseline and after 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be the sociodemographic characteristics of health professionals, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the Patient Activation Measure questionnaire for patient activation and outcomes regarding use of the virtual community of practice. We will calculate a linear mixed-effects regression to estimate the effect of participating in the virtual community of practice., Discussion: This cluster randomized controlled trial will show whether a virtual intervention for primary healthcare professionals improves attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases., Trial Registration: ClicalTrials.gov, NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016. Protocol Version. PI15.01 22 January 2016.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of medical counselling in reducing alcohol consumption in male heavy drinkers., Design: A controlled, randomised, simple-blind intervention study., Setting: Four Primary Care teams in Area 10, Madrid., Patients: 152 men who attended for on-demand treatment from the four teams and whose alcohol consumption was over 21 International Units (IU) a week., Intervention: Brief medical counselling backed up by didactic material. Two questionnaires on alcohol consumption in IU, consumption habits and problems related to alcohol were administered, separated by an interval of between 6 and 18 months. Non-parametric tests for paired samples (McNemar) were applied., Results: 60% answered the second questionnaire. Neither sociodemographic nor health habit differences were found between those who responded and those who did not, except for social class. There were no appreciable differences between the intervention and control groups. The percentage of drinkers above 35 IU decreased significantly in the intervention group., Conclusions: The intervention was clearly effective in reducing the percentage of drinkers whose weekly consumption was over 35 IU.