Comparison of the sustainability of the impact of team-based versus individual clinician-focused training of primary care professionals in serious illness conversations on caregiver burden of care: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Training health professionals in serious illness conversations is important for patients with serious illnesses and for their caregivers. However, most training focuses on individual clinicians rather than on healthcare teams. Caregivers of their patients are highly sensitive to changes in communication dynamics in the healthcare setting. We aimed to compare the impact of a team-based training program in serious illness conversations with that of an individual clinician-focused training program on the burden of care of caregivers of patients with serious illnesses, and the sustainability of these impacts over time. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of caregivers’ data from a preliminary cluster randomized trial in the USA and Canada in which 42 primary care clinics were randomized to an interprofessional team-based training arm (intervention) or an individual clinician-focused training arm (control). Seriously ill patients who had had a serious illness conversation with the trained clinicians were asked to refer a caregiver. We used the Zarit Burden Interview (range: 0–48) to assess caregiver burden immediately after the serious illness conversation (T1), six months later (T2) and 12 months later (T3). Statistical analyses using a linear mixed model were performed to compare caregiver burden between the two arms at the three times. RESULTS: We included 192 caregivers from 42 primary care clinics. Most were female (67.8%); aged 65–74 (28.6%). The mean caregiver burden scores were low, and similar in both the arms at the three times. The difference in mean burden between the two study arms was 1.05 (95% CI -1.47 to 3.59; p = 0.40), -0.24 (95% CI -2.57 to 2.08; p = 0.82), and 0.09 (95% CI -2.61 to 2.81; p = 0.94) at T1, T2 and T3 respectively. The p-value of the interaction term between study arm and time was p = 0.47. Mean difference between arms after performing a model with time effect and after adjusting was 0.90 (95% CI -0.76 to 2.57; p = 0.28). Various other factors such as caregivers feeling anxious or depressed were associated with caregiver burden. CONCLUSION: Analysis showed that there was no difference between perceived caregiver burden after the interprofessional team-based training approach and after the individual clinician-focused training approach. Our study did however underline the importance of recognizing other factors influencing caregiver well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03577002).
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 | 0,015 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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.
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 ».