ISSN: 2161-0711

Medicina comunitaria y educación para la salud

Acceso abierto

Nuestro grupo organiza más de 3000 Series de conferencias Eventos cada año en EE. UU., Europa y América. Asia con el apoyo de 1.000 sociedades científicas más y publica más de 700 Acceso abierto Revistas que contienen más de 50.000 personalidades eminentes, científicos de renombre como miembros del consejo editorial.

Revistas de acceso abierto que ganan más lectores y citas
700 revistas y 15 000 000 de lectores Cada revista obtiene más de 25 000 lectores

Indexado en
  • Índice Copérnico
  • Google Académico
  • sherpa romeo
  • Revista GenámicaBuscar
  • SeguridadIluminado
  • Búsqueda de referencia
  • Universidad Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • publones
  • Fundación de Ginebra para la educación y la investigación médicas
  • Pub Europeo
  • ICMJE
Comparte esta página

Abstracto

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.