Patient Perspectives on a Tailored Self-Management Education and Support Intervention for Low-Income Seniors With Chronic Health Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: tudy (ACCESS) was a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial that tested the impact of a tailored self-management education support (SMES) program, which demonstrated a 22% reduction in adverse clinical events. We sought to qualitatively explore participants' perspectives on the SMES intervention, and the ways in which it may have improved self-management skills. Methods: We used a qualitative descriptive approach and conducted individual semistructured interviews. We conducted inductive and deductive thematic analysis using NVivo 12 (QSR International, Burlington, MA). Results: We interviewed 20 participants who had recently completed the 3-year SMES intervention. The following 3 main themes emerged from the data: (i) empowerment; (ii) intervention acceptability; and (iii) suggestions for improvement. Regarding empowerment, we identified subthemes of health literacy, self-efficacy, self-management, and active role in health. Several participants reported that empowerment promoted health behaviour change or improved confidence in self-management. Regarding acceptability, we identified subthemes of ease of use and presentation style. Most participants expressed positive feelings toward the intervention and felt that it was easy to understand. Finally, we identified subthemes of learning style, content, and engagement strategies, within the theme of suggestions for improvement. Some participants said that the messages were too general and did not fully address the complex health concerns they had. Conclusions: Our results highlighted key strategies to promote patient engagement and self-management behaviours and demonstrated how they may have been used to improve clinical endpoints. Additionally, we demonstrated the novel use of marketing principles in SMES interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".