An Electronically Delivered Person-Centered Narrative Intervention for Persons Receiving Palliative Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In the health care setting, electronic health records (EHRs) are one of the primary modes of communication about patients, but most of this information is clinician centered. There is a need to consider the patient as a person and integrate their perspectives into their health record. Incorporating a patient's narrative into the EHR provides an opportunity to communicate patients' cultural values and beliefs to the health care team and has the potential to improve patient-clinician communication. This paper describes the protocol to evaluate the integration of an adapted person-centered narrative intervention (PCNI). This adaptation builds on our previous research centered on the implementation of PCNIs. The adaptation for this study includes an all-electronic delivery of a PCNI in an outpatient clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: This research protocol aims to evaluate the feasibility, usability, and effects of the all-electronic delivery of a PCNI in an outpatient setting on patient-reported outcomes. The first objective of this study is to identify the barriers and facilitators of an internet-based-delivered PCNI from the perspectives of persons living with serious illness and their clinicians. The second objective is to conduct acceptability, usability, and intervention fidelity testing to determine the essential requirements for the EHR integration of an internet-based-delivered PCNI. The third objective is to test the feasibility of the PCNI in an outpatient clinic setting. METHODS: Using a mixed method design, this single-arm intervention feasibility study was delivered over approximately 3 to 4 weeks. Patient participant recruitment was conducted via screening outpatient palliative care clinic schedules weekly for upcoming new palliative care patient visits and then emailing potential patient participants to notify them about the study. The PCNI was delivered via email and Zoom app. Patient-reported outcome measures were completed by patient participants at baseline, 24 to 48 hours after PCNI, and after the initial palliative care clinic visit, approximately 1 month after baseline. Inclusion criteria included having the capacity to give consent and having an upcoming initial outpatient palliative care clinic visit. RESULTS: The recruitment of participants began in April 2021. A total of 189 potential patient participants were approached via email, and 20 patient participants were enrolled, with data having been collected from May 2021 to September 2022. A total of 7 clinician participants were enrolled, with a total of 3 clinician exit interviews and 1 focus group (n=5), which was conducted in October 2022. Data analysis is expected to be completed by the end of June 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study, combined with those from other PCNI studies conducted in acute care settings, have the potential to influence clinical practices and policies and provide innovative avenues to integrate more person-centered care delivery. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/41787.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,043 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,051 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».