Exploring the Acceptability of a Community-Enhanced Intervention to Improve Decision Support Partnership between Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Family Caregivers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Project Overview</h3> <p> The goal of this 12-month, 3-phase formative evaluation intervention pilot study was to create a patient component to a decision support training intervention in development for family caregivers, called ImPart (Improving Decisional Partnership of CKD Dyads). ImPart consists of two caregiver components: 1) coaching on effective decision support and 2) decision support communication training. As a part of the original intervention, patients were only to receive Ottawa Decision Guide training. After understanding through interviews with patients and caregivers that this was not enough, we undertook this study to develop a more comprehensive patient-focused component to the intervention. </p> The purposes of the study were: <ol type="1"> <li>In Phase I, to use collaborative research principles to partner with patient and caregiver stakeholder group to use previously collected interview data to adapt the caregiver decision support training for patients. </li> <li>In Phase II, to test the refined patient component in a single-arm pilot study consisting of two consecutive waves of 5 patient/caregiver dyads/waves. While only patients participated in the decisional support training, caregivers were also interviewed to explore their perceptions of the patient’s ability to be a better decisional-support partner. To ensure that diverse experiences were captured, we purposively ensured that 50% of participants identify as Black. </li> <li>In Phase III, to share the preliminary data regarding acceptability and useability and complete final refinement of the patient component. </li> </ol> <p>This deposit provides the interview data from the Phase 2 acceptability interviews with CKD patients-caregivers dyads to describe their health-related decision-making experiences, needs, and challenges. These data have led to discussions about how patient training in communication could enhance the decision support partnership between the patient and caregiver. Additionally, this study was guided by an engaged, established patient and caregiver stakeholder group. Consisting of 8 members (4 patients, 4 caregivers/ 4 Black) this group has partnered with the study team since development and are committed to continue serving as their health allows in ongoing research endeavors.</p> <p> By using data and engaging those who have experience in CKD we have created a more robust dyadic version of ImPart that is better designed to empower the CKD dyad, with the decisional partnership and communication skills required to navigate advanced CKD before illness decisions are necessary (stage 3B and 4) so they can: 1. contemplate the decision needed; 2. positively deal with emotions; 3. request the resources/support needed; and 4. make decisions that reflect one’s expectations, values, and preferences. </p>
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».