MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4392817712 · doi:10.2196/50242

Patients’ Perspectives on Plans Generated During Primary Care Visits and Self-Reported Adherence at 3 Months: Data From a Randomized Trial

2024· article· en· W4392817712 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheryl D. Stults, Kathleen M. Mazor, Michael Cheung, Bernice Ruo, Martina Li, Amanda Walker, Cassandra Saphirak, Florin Vaida, Sonal Singh, Kimberly A. Fisher, Rebecca Rosen, Robert A. Yood, Lawrence Garber, Chris Longhurst, Gene Kallenberg, Edward Yu, Albert Chan, Marlene Millen, Ming Tai‐Seale

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Participatory Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Mots-clésMedicineBivariate analysisLogistic regressionPrimary careFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialHealth planDescriptive statisticsHealth careSurgeryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Effective primary care necessitates follow-up actions by the patient beyond the visit. Prior research suggests room for improvement in patient adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand patients' views on their primary care visits, the plans generated therein, and their self-reported adherence after 3 months. METHODS: As part of a large multisite cluster randomized pragmatic trial in 3 health care organizations, patients completed 2 surveys-the first within 7 days after the index primary care visit and another 3 months later. For this analysis of secondary outcomes, we combined the results across all study participants to understand patient adherence to care plans. We recorded patient characteristics and survey responses. Cross-tabulation and chi-square statistics were used to examine bivariate associations, adjusting for multiple comparisons when appropriate. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess how patients' intention to follow, agreement, and understanding of their plans impacted their plan adherence, allowing for differences in individual characteristics. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to characterize the patient's self-reported plans and reasons for adhering (or not) to the plan 3 months later. RESULTS: Of 2555 patients, most selected the top box option (9=definitely agree) that they felt they had a clear plan (n=2011, 78%), agreed with the plan (n=2049, 80%), and intended to follow the plan (n=2108, 83%) discussed with their provider at the primary care visit. The most common elements of the plans reported included reference to exercise (n=359, 14.1%), testing (laboratory, imaging, etc; n=328, 12.8%), diet (n=296, 11.6%), and initiation or adjustment of medications; (n=284, 11.1%). Patients who strongly agreed that they had a clear plan, agreed with the plan, and intended to follow the plan were all more likely to report plan completion 3 months later (P<.001) than those providing less positive ratings. Patients who reported plans related to following up with the primary care provider (P=.008) to initiate or adjust medications (P≤.001) and to have a specialist visit were more likely to report that they had completely followed the plan (P=.003). Adjusting for demographic variables, patients who indicated intent to follow their plan were more likely to follow-through 3 months later (P<.001). Patients' reasons for completely following the plan were mainly that the plan was clear (n=1114, 69.5%), consistent with what mattered (n=1060, 66.1%), and they were determined to carry through with the plan (n=887, 53.3%). The most common reasons for not following the plan were lack of time (n=217, 22.8%), having decided to try a different approach (n=105, 11%), and the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the plan (n=105, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' initial assessment of their plan as clear, their agreement with the plan, and their initial willingness to follow the plan were all strongly related to their self-reported completion of the plan 3 months later. Patients whose plans involved lifestyle changes were less likely to report that they had "completely" followed their plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03385512; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03385512. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/30431.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,022
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,118

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0220,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,007
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,328
Tête enseignante GPT0,466
Écart entre enseignants0,138 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Participatory MedicineMême sujetPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareTravaux en français237 207