4.3 Article

I Do My Best To Listen to Patients: Qualitative Insights Into DAWN2 (Diabetes Psychosocial Care From the Perspective of Health Care Professionals in the Second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs Study)

期刊

CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 1986-1998

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.06.010

关键词

diabetes; education; health care professionals; motivation; patient-centered; person-centered; psychosocial; qualitative; self-management; survey

资金

  1. DAWN2 study
  2. AbbVie Inc
  3. Pfizer Inc
  4. Novo Nordisk
  5. Krka (Poland)
  6. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd
  7. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma
  8. AstraZeneca
  9. Bristol-Myers Squibb/Amylin
  10. Calibra
  11. Eli Lilly
  12. Roche/Genentech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe the perspectives of diabetes care professionals regarding the roles and responsibilities of people with diabetes (PWD), health care professionals (HCPs), and the larger society to improve the provision of person-centered diabetes care. Methods: The survey contained open-ended items about challenges of, successes of, and wishes for improvements in treating adults with diabetes. All responses were systematically coded using a schema developed and validated through multinational collaboration. Findings: Participants were 4785 diabetes care professionals (physicians, nurses, and dietitians) from 17 countries. The data contained 2 distinct themes. One theme reflected the fact that the roles and responsibilities of HCPs are transitioning from those of one who tells to one who listens to PWD. Some ways that HCPs can listen to PWD and family members is to involve them in goals and to encourage self-management for the improvement of treatment. The second theme identified barriers to successful diabetes care, which include a lack of time and collaboration from HCPs, a lack of availability of resources for treatment, and a lack of psychosocial support. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据