Perceived facilitating and limiting factors for healthcare professionals to adopting a patient decision aid for breast cancer aftercare: A cross-sectional study |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Maastricht University, Department of Radiotherapy/GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology/CAPHRI Care and Public Health, Research Institute, P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands;2. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Zuyd Health, Research Centre Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Nursing Department, Heerlen, the Netherlands;3. Maastricht University, Department of Family Medicine/CAPHRI Care and Public Health, Research Institute, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419 DJ Heerlen, Maastricht, the Netherlands;4. Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Zuyd Health, Research Centre for Community Care, Nursing Department, Heerlen, the Netherlands;5. Maastricht University, Department of Health Services Research/CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Nieuw Eyckholt 300, 6419 DJ Heerlen, Maastricht, the Netherlands;6. Maastricht University Medical Centre +, Department of KEMTA/CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands;7. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO Clinic)/GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre +, P.O. Box 3035, 6202 NA Maastricht, the Netherlands;8. Maastricht University, Department of Health Promotion/CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands;1. University of Florida, Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, Gainesville, FL, United States;2. University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, Chicago, IL, United States;3. University of Illinois at Chicago Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center, Chicago, IL, United States;4. University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Chicago, IL, United States;5. Jesse Brown Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States;6. University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy, Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences and Comprehensive Sickle Cell Center Chicago, IL, United States;7. Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States;1. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;2. Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;3. East Durham Children’s Initiative, Durham, North Carolina, USA;4. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;5. Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA;6. Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA;7. Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA;8. Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;9. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, USA;10. Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA;1. Department of Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA;2. Center for Neurological Restoration, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA;3. Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA;1. Health Services Research Unit, Lillebaelt Hospital – University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark;2. Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark;3. Department of Paediatrics, Lillebaelt Hospital – University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark;4. Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;1. Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere University, Tampere, Finland;2. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 00032 Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, P.O. Box 18, Oulu, Finland;1. Department of General Surgery, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, Oregon;2. Oregon Health and Science University, Biostatistics Shared Resource- Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveEffective healthcare innovations are often not adopted and implemented. An implementation strategy based on facilitators and barriers for use as perceived by healthcare professionals could increase adoption rates. This study therefore aimed to identify the most relevant facilitators and barriers for use of an innovative breast cancer aftercare decision aid (PtDA) in healthcare practice.MethodsFacilitators and barriers (related to the PtDA, adopter and healthcare organisation) were assessed among breast cancer aftercare health professionals (n = 81), using the MIDI questionnaire. For each category, a backward regression analysis was performed (dependent = intention to adopt). All significant factors were then added to a final regression analysis to identify to most relevant determinants of PtDA adoption.ResultsExpecting higher compatibility with daily practice and clinical guidelines, more positive outcomes of use, higher perceived relevance for the patient and increased self-efficacy were significantly associated with a higher intention to adopt. Self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance remained significant in the final model.ConclusionsLow perceived self-efficacy and patient relevance are the most important barriers for health professions to adopt a breast cancer aftercare PtDA.Practice implicationsTo target self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance, the implementation strategy could apply health professional peer champions. |
| |
| Keywords: | Intention to adopt Patient decision aid Breast cancer aftercare Healthcare professionals |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
