Objectives Our study explored community preceptors’ perceptions of their teaching role, to better understand effective ambulatory and community‐based teaching. Methods Bandura’s social cognitive theory and Schön’s notion of reflective practice guided conceptual development of an interview exploring preceptors’ views of their role, teaching goals, teaching techniques, student assessment practices, factors affecting teaching and learning, and balance of patient and student needs. Preceptors reflected also on a significant personal teaching experience. A total of 17 highly student‐rated preceptors participated. A trained interviewer conducted each interview; all were transcribed and subjected to content analysis. Results Preceptors (male, 14; female, 3) described learner‐centred approaches, setting goals jointly with the student. Demonstration, guided practice, observation and feedback were integral to the experience. Preceptors saw student comfort in the environment as key to effective learning; they attempted to maximize students’ learning and breadth of experience. They wanted students to understand content, ‘know‐how’ and ‘being a family physician’. Patients remained the primary responsibility, but learners’ needs were viewed as compatible with that responsibility. Many preceptors perceived a professional responsibility as ‘role models’. Conclusions Preceptors recognized the dynamic environment in which they taught students, and they described strategies which demonstrated how they adapted their teaching to meet the needs of the learner in that environment. These teachers combined learner‐centred approaches with sound educational practices, broad learning experiences, attention to student learning and concern for development of professional expertise and judgement. These findings may assist faculty development in family medicine, and other disciplines, in providing effective ambulatory care teaching.
Asthma guideline developers and those interested in enhancing compliance with recommendations will need to attend to factors such as physician attitudes and beliefs on a variety of issues, including the use of objective measures and the availability of adequate resources to conduct the tests. Similarly, negative patient attitudes toward an increased use of corticosteroids suggest that a public education program would be most helpful regarding that group of recommendations.
Background Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi‐structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two‐way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or Public Contribution Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of da...
Background: Deprescribing is a complex process requiring consideration of behavior change theory to improve implementation and uptake. Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that influence deprescribing for primary healthcare providers (family physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and pharmacists) within Nova Scotia using the Theoretical Domains Framework version 2 (TDF(v2)) and the Behavior Change Wheel. Methods: Interviews and focus groups were completed with primary care providers (physicians, NPs, and pharmacists) in Nova Scotia, Canada. Coding was completed using the TDF(v2) to identify the key influencers. Subdomain themes were also identified for the main TDF(v2) domains and results were then linked to the Behavior Change Wheel—Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation components. Results: Participants identified key influencers for deprescribing including areas related to Opportunity, within TDF(v2) domain Social Influences, such as patients and other healthcare providers, as well as Physical barriers (TDF(v2) domain Environmental Context and Resources), such as lack of time and reimbursement. Conclusion: Our results suggest that a systematic approach to deprescribing in primary care should be supported by opportunities for patient and healthcare provider collaborations, as well as practice and system level enhancements to support sustainability of deprescribing practices.
Introduction Improving healthcare for people with multiple chronic or ongoing conditions is receiving increased attention, particularly due to the growing number of people experiencing multimorbidity (MM) and concerns about the sustainability of the healthcare system. Primary care has been promoted as an important resource for supporting people with MM to live well with their conditions and to prevent unnecessary use of health care services. However, traditional primary care has been criticized for not centring the needs and preferences of people with MM themselves. Our aim was to conduct a review that centred on the perspective of people with MM in multiple ways, including having patient partners co‐lead the design, conduct and reporting of findings, and focusing on literature that reported the perspective of people with MM, irrespective of it being experimental or nonexperimental. Methods We searched for published literature in CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost) and MEDLINE All (Ovid). Findings from experimental and nonexperimental studies were integrated into collaboration with patient partners. Results Twenty‐nine articles were included in the review. Findings are described in five categories: (1) Care that is tailored to my unique situation; (2) meaningful inclusion in the team; (3) a healthcare team that is ready and able to address my complex needs; (4) supportive relationships and (5) access when and where I need it. Conclusion This review supports a reorientation of primary care systems to better reflect the experiences and perspectives of people with MM. This can be accomplished by involving patient partners in the design and evaluation of primary care services and incentivizing collaboration among health and social supports and services for people with MM. Patient or Public Contribution Patient partners were involved in the design and conduct of this review, and in the preparation of the manuscript. Their involvement is further elucidated in the manuscript text.
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.