Perceptions of patients and healthcare providers on patient education to improve oral anticoagulant management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Education of patients is thought to be key to high-quality oral anticoagulant (OAC) medication management. Theoretically, improving patients' knowledge should improve their self-management skills and adherence. The study's objective was to explore the opinions of healthcare providers and patients on the desired content and format of patient education on OACs, in addition to perceived barriers to high-quality patient education. METHODS: We applied qualitative descriptive methods in a focus group study on OAC management. Five focus group discussions were conducted in two health regions in Southwestern Ontario from 2017 to 2018 with 19 patients, 7 caregivers and 16 healthcare providers (physicians, nurses and pharmacists). During the focus groups, participants discussed their experiences with OAC education and made suggestions about the content and format for patient education on OACs. Transcripts were analysed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: We identified the five themes of patient education on OAC management: content of OAC education (rationale, risk and appropriate drug administration methods), the best times for providing OAC education (time of OACs initiation along with continuing education), preferred education delivery strategies (case management targeted patient information summaries from authoritative sources such as Thrombosis Canada and video education), patient and community pharmacist engagement in OAC education, and perceived barriers to optimal patient education (patients depending too much on their healthcare providers for advice, the limited time patients spend with healthcare providers, gaps in clear communication between providers and the lack of a nationally or provincially coordinated OAC management programme). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that patients, caregivers and healthcare providers support the need for education on OACs, including for patients taking DOACs. Specific important content and proper education format are needed. The optimal combination of content, format, duration, timing and sources for OAC education requires further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".