Objectives To characterise the information needs of family doctors by collecting the questions they asked about patient care during consultations and to classify these in ways that would be useful to developers of knowledge bases. Design Observational study in which investigators visited doctors for two half days and collected their questions. Taxonomies were developed to characterise the clinical topic and generic type of information sought for each question. Setting Eastern Iowa. Participants Random sample of 103 family doctors. Main outcome measures Number of questions posed, pursued, and answered; topic and generic type of information sought for each question; time spent pursuing answers; information resources used. Results Participants asked a total of 1101 questions. Questions about drug prescribing, obstetrics and gynaecology, and adult infectious disease were most common and comprised 36% of all questions. The taxonomy of generic questions included 69 categories; the three most common types, comprising 24% of all questions, were "What is the cause of symptom X?" "What is the dose of drug X?" and "How should I manage disease or finding X?" Answers to most questions (702, 64%) were not immediately pursued, but, of those pursued, most (318, 80%) were answered. Doctors spent an average of less than 2 minutes pursuing an answer, and they used readily available print and human resources. Only two questions led to a formal literature search. Conclusions Family doctors in this study did not pursue answers to most of their questions. Questions about patient care can be organised into a limited number of generic types, which could help guide the efforts of knowledge base developers.
Nortriptyline, paroxetine, and sertraline may be preferred choices in breast-feeding women. Minimizing the maternal dose may be helpful with citalopram. Current data do not support monitoring breast milk levels in individual patients. Future researchers should report maternal, breast milk, and infant antidepressant levels along with other appropriate variables.
PHRs can engage older adults for better medication self-management; however, features that motivate continued use will be needed. Longer-term studies of continued users will be required to evaluate the impact of these changes in behavior on patient health outcomes.
Objectives: Patient self-care behaviors, including taking medication, following a meal plan, exercising regularly, and testing blood glucose, influence diabetes control. The purpose of this research was to identify (1) which barriers to diabetes management are associated with problem behaviors and (2) which patient behaviors and barriers are associated with diabetes control.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of linked medical record and self-reported information from patients with type 2 diabetes. A randomly selected sample of 800 clinic patients was mailed an investigator-developed survey. The study sample consisted of 253 (55%) individuals who had measured glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) within 3 months of the survey date.Results: The barriers to each diabetes self-care behavior differed. Cost was the most common barrier to the 4 self-care behaviors. In a multivariable regression model, the belief that type 2 diabetes is a serious problem and depression were strongly associated with higher HbA1c levels. Lower HbA1c levels were significantly associated with being married and greater self-reported adherence-satisfaction with taking medication and testing blood glucose.Conclusion: This study expanded earlier research by focusing on 4 specific self-care behaviors, their barriers, and their association with HbA1c. Barriers that were significantly associated with HbA1c were specific to the behavior and varied across behaviors. Although the importance of glycemic control is well established, 1 it is often not achieved. 2 Factors contributing to poor control include inadequacies in patient self-care behaviors, medical management, or both. [3][4][5][6][7] Physicians know that patient self-care behaviors influence diabetes control but may lack training for and interest in motivating their patients to improve these behaviors. 8 Contributing to poor control is a paucity of information available about the frequency of problem behaviors, barriers to appropriate care behaviors, or the relationship of specific patient self-care behaviors to glycemic control. 9,10 Our conceptual model for this study is shown in Figure 1, adapted from the works of Glasgow. 11Factors that influence diabetes adherence in our model include personal factors, such as type and duration of diabetes, illness, and other health conditions and psychosocial factors. Glasgow's model places primary emphasis on the variables of the patient-health care provider interactions, compliance, and outcomes. The patient-provider interactions are composed of the patient's perspective and participation, appropriateness of prescriptions, and clarity and specificity of recommendations. The social/environmental influences included barriers to adherence, community resources, social support, and economic factors. The primary emphases of this study were the performance of 4 primary self-care behaviors and specific barriers to these behaviors: (1) medication use, (2) meal plans, (3) exercise, and (4) home glucose testing. In addition, our model attempts to include many ...
Introduction: Only about half of all eligible Americans have been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study was to test whether mailed educational materials and a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), with or without a scripted telephone reminder, led to FIT testing. In addition, we compared changes in attitudes toward, readiness for, and barriers to screening from baseline to follow-up after education about screening.Methods: Subjects due for CRC screening were recruited from 16 Iowa Research Network family physician offices. Half of the subjects were randomized to receive mailed written and DVD educational materials, along with a FIT, either with or without a telephone call designed to encourage screening and address barriers. Subjects completed surveys regarding their attitudes and readiness for CRC screening at baseline and after education about screening. The main outcome was whether the subject completed FIT testing.Results: A total of 373 individuals received educational materials (including a FIT) and 231 (62%) returned a posteducation survey. The mean age was 61.2 years; 52% were women, 99% were white, 39% had a high school education or less, 39% had a total family income of less than $40,000, and 7% had no insurance. The written materials were read by 82%, understood by 91% (of those who read them), and 82% felt their knowledge was increased. The DVD was viewed by 67%, understood by 94% of those who viewed it, and 86% felt the DVD increased their knowledge. Compared with baseline, individuals reported being significantly more likely to bring up CRC screening at their next doctor's visit (P < .0001) and being more likely to be tested for CRC in the next 6 months (P < .0001). Comparing baseline with follow-up, summary attitude scores improved (P < .0001), readiness scores improved (P < .0001), and there were fewer barriers (P ؍ .034, Wilcoxon signed rank). The FIT return rate increased from 0% to 45.2% in the education alone group and from 0% to 48.7% for the group receiving education plus the telephone call (P < .0001 for each group individually and overall when compared with Medicare beneficiaries in Iowa).Conclusions: Mailing FIT kits with easy-to-understand educational materials improved attitudes toward screening and dramatically increased CRC screening rates among patients who were due for screening in a practice-based research network. A telephone call addressing barriers to screening did not result in increased FIT testing compared with mailed education alone. (J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:73-82.)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.