4.2 Article

Does 'peer coaching' increase GP capacity to promote informed decision making about PSA screening? A cluster randomised trial

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 253-265

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmi028

关键词

informed decision making; PSA screening; randomised controlled trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Very little effort has been directed to enable GPs to better informed decisions about PSA screening among their male patients. Objectives. To evaluate an innovative programme designed to enhance GPs' capacity to promote informed decision making by male patients about PSA screening. Methods. The study design was a cluster randomised controlled trial set in New South Wales, Australia's most populous state. 277 GPs were recruited through a major pathology laboratory. The interventions were three telephone-administered 'peer coaching' sessions integrated with educational resources for GPs and patients and the main outcome measures were: GP knowledge; perceptions of patient involvement in informed decision making; GPs' own decisional conflict; and perceptions of medicolegal risk. Results. Compared with GPs allocated to the control group, GPs allocated to our intervention gained significantly greater knowledge about PSA screening and related information [Mean 6.1 out of 7; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.9-6.3 versus 4.8; 95% CI = 4.6-5.0; P < 0.001]. They were less likely to agree that patients should remain passive when making decisions about PSA screening [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.04-0.31; P < 0.001]. They perceived less medicolegal risk when not acceding to an 'uninformed' patient request for a PSA test (OR = 0.31; 95% CI 0.19-0.51). They also demonstrated lower levels of personal decisional conflict about the PSA screening (Mean 25.4; 95% CI 24.5-26.3 versus 27.8; 95% CI 26.6-29.0; P = 0.0002). Conclusion. A 'peer coaching' programme, supplemented by education materials, holds promise as a strategy to equip GPs to facilitate informed decision making amongst their patients.

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

4.2
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