ISSN: 2161-0711

Общественная медицина и санитарное просвещение

Открытый доступ

Наша группа организует более 3000 глобальных конференций Ежегодные мероприятия в США, Европе и США. Азия при поддержке еще 1000 научных обществ и публикует более 700 Открытого доступа Журналы, в которых представлены более 50 000 выдающихся деятелей, авторитетных учёных, входящих в редколлегии.

 

Журналы открытого доступа набирают больше читателей и цитируемости
700 журналов и 15 000 000 читателей Каждый журнал получает более 25 000 читателей

Индексировано в
  • Индекс Коперника
  • Google Scholar
  • Шерпа Ромео
  • Генамика ЖурналSeek
  • БезопасностьЛит
  • РефСик
  • Университет Хамдарда
  • ЭБСКО, Аризона
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Публикации
  • Женевский фонд медицинского образования и исследований
  • Евро Паб
  • ICMJE
Поделиться этой страницей

Абстрактный

Patient Strength of Preference for Best Practices in Patient Education

Walsh R, Aliarzadeh B, Mastrogiacomo C

Background: Patient education is important in healthcare. As such, EULAR, the European League Against Rheumatism, has created and published 8 evidence-based and expert-opinion-based recommendations for patient education. However, the relevance and relative importance of these recommendations to a general patient population are yet to be determined. Our study aimed to determine patients’ strength of preference for the different EULAR recommendations for patient education.
Methods: We performed an adaptive, partial-profile conjoint analysis using a discrete choice survey on a crosssection of patients in a family practice. Results: A total 56.8% of patients approached in clinic agreed to participate. Of those who started the survey, 94.4% completed the survey. The mean time to complete the survey was 10.7 minutes. Mean rankings of the 8 EULAR recommendations, where 1 is the most preferred and 8 the least preferred, were 3.4 for content of education, 3.9 for training of education providers, 4.1 for who delivers the education, 4.5 for education methods offered, 4.6 for how often the education should be offered, 4.9 for accessibility of education, 5.3 for level of personalization, and 5.4 for monitoring of education.
Conclusion: Participants felt that the most important features were content, training of education providers, and who delivered the education. The level of personalization and the monitoring of the education were deemed less important. In addition, we determined that it is feasible to measure patient preferences using a discrete choice survey in a family practice setting.