Patients' with asplenia and doctors' experiences in implementing preventative measures following a novel educational intervention: a qualitative analysis.
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Nov 2022
08 Nov 2022
Historique:
entrez:
9
11
2022
pubmed:
10
11
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To explore patients' with asplenia and general practitioners' (GPs) (1) perceptions of a novel, A process evaluation conducted on average 3.5 (for patients) and 3.8 (for GPs) months after the intervention between January 2020 and April 2021 individually by means of semi-structured guideline-based telephone interviews. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Volunteer subsample of N=25 patients with asplenia and N=8 GPs who received the intervention. Inclusion criteria were met by prior participation in the intervention (German-speaking, of full age and insured by the cooperating health insurance). Patient selection was done by purposeful selection aiming at maximum variability in terms of adherence to preventative measures prior to intervention participation. Participating GPs are a non-purposeful selected convenience sample. For reasons of data protection, no personal data was collected. The intervention was positively evaluated and its personal relevancy for patients and for the GPs' professional work became apparent. The intervention promoted risk awareness, intention to action, action planning and subsequently, improved adherence to preventative measures. Helpful factors for implementation among the patients were social support by relatives and GPs. Barriers to adherence identified in both groups can be divided into patient-attributed (eg, comorbidities), doctor-related (eg, lack of knowledge or support) as well as contextual factors (eg, vaccine supply constraints). Our findings indicate a patient and GP perceived benefit of the intervention, but still identify prevailing barriers to implementation. In a further step, a quantitative evaluation of the intervention will be conducted and recommendations for integrating the intervention in usual care will be made. DRKS00015238.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36351729
pii: bmjopen-2021-060492
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060492
pmc: PMC9644314
doi:
Banques de données
DRKS
['DRKS00015238']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e060492Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
J Infect Public Health. 2011 Sep;4(4):187-94
pubmed: 22000846
J Surg Res. 2015 Dec;199(2):580-5
pubmed: 26163332
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 1;62(7):871-878
pubmed: 26703862
Br J Haematol. 2011 Nov;155(3):308-17
pubmed: 21988145
BMC Public Health. 2018 Nov 6;18(1):1230
pubmed: 30400790
Hematol J. 2004;5(1):77-80
pubmed: 14745434
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2021 Mar;20(3):297-308
pubmed: 33538617
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Dec;12(8):1139-1147
pubmed: 28799083
PLoS One. 2011 Mar 10;6(3):e17302
pubmed: 21423748
Rehabil Psychol. 2011 Aug;56(3):161-70
pubmed: 21767036
Vaccine. 2008 Dec 9;26(52):6975-9
pubmed: 18848594
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 14;20(1):41
pubmed: 31937251
BMJ. 2021 Sep 30;374:n2061
pubmed: 34593508
Infect Drug Resist. 2019 Sep 12;12:2839-2851
pubmed: 31571940
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020 Jan;63(1):32-39
pubmed: 31802154