Annals of medicine · 2025
A guideline-based preference elicitation tool to enhance shared decision-making in supervised exercise therapy for patients with intermittent claudication: a process evaluation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marcellis Laura H M, Rutgers Katrien M, Spruijt Steffie, Teijink Joep A W, van der Wees Philip J, Hoogeboom Thomas J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To facilitate person-centered physical therapy for patients with intermittent claudication, we introduced a preference elicitation tool to Dutch physical therapists. The tool is designed to support the patient-therapist dialogue and enhance collaborative treatment planning. Successful integration of this tool into practice requires a thorough understanding of factors that influenced therapists' (non)adoption.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether therapists adopted the preference elicitation tool, assess the tool's reach, and identify perceived barriers and facilitators by therapists that influenced adoption.
METHODS: A multi-method process evaluation was conducted following a series of implementation activities. Routinely collected quantitative data were used to assess adoption and reach. Adoption was measured by the percentage of therapists who completed the tool's e-learning module and the percentage of therapists who started using the tool. Reach was measured by the percentage of eligible patients with whom therapists actually used the tool. To identify barriers and facilitators, qualitative semi-structured interviews with eleven therapists were conducted and deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework.
RESULTS: Of the 1,130 therapists eligible to use the preference elicitation tool, 64% completed the e-learning. Among these, 45% started using the tool in clinical practice. Therapists used the tool with 38% of eligible patients. In total, 39 barriers and 37 facilitators for tool adoption were identified. Barriers included time investment, discomfort with the formal communication setting, and conflicts with activity-oriented role perceptions. Facilitators included the tool's user-friendliness, flexible use of the tool, and enhanced patient engagement.
CONCLUSION: Modest adoption and reach rates indicate opportunities for improving uptake and sustainable implementation of the preference elicitation tool. Therapists' decisions to adopt the tool were influenced by various factors. Providing therapists with strategies to maintain a flexible approach to using the tool could address key barriers. Future research should explore patients' perspectives on the preference elicitation tool.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether therapists adopted the preference elicitation tool, assess the tool's reach, and identify perceived barriers and facilitators by therapists that influenced adoption.
METHODS: A multi-method process evaluation was conducted following a series of implementation activities. Routinely collected quantitative data were used to assess adoption and reach. Adoption was measured by the percentage of therapists who completed the tool's e-learning module and the percentage of therapists who started using the tool. Reach was measured by the percentage of eligible patients with whom therapists actually used the tool. To identify barriers and facilitators, qualitative semi-structured interviews with eleven therapists were conducted and deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases framework.
RESULTS: Of the 1,130 therapists eligible to use the preference elicitation tool, 64% completed the e-learning. Among these, 45% started using the tool in clinical practice. Therapists used the tool with 38% of eligible patients. In total, 39 barriers and 37 facilitators for tool adoption were identified. Barriers included time investment, discomfort with the formal communication setting, and conflicts with activity-oriented role perceptions. Facilitators included the tool's user-friendliness, flexible use of the tool, and enhanced patient engagement.
CONCLUSION: Modest adoption and reach rates indicate opportunities for improving uptake and sustainable implementation of the preference elicitation tool. Therapists' decisions to adopt the tool were influenced by various factors. Providing therapists with strategies to maintain a flexible approach to using the tool could address key barriers. Future research should explore patients' perspectives on the preference elicitation tool.