Exploring health and well-being in Taiwan: what we can learn from individuals' narratives

Qualitative Analysis of Attitudes, Knowledge, and Interest in Research of People with Parkinson's Disease and Their Care Partners Receiving Accessible Research Education

Background

People with Parkinson's disease (PWP) and their care partners (CP) are underrepresented in research.

Methods

As an eight-week research advocacy training program, TeleDREAMS was designed to increase understanding of, and participation in, clinical research by older adults through topics on the research process. Qualitative analysis was conducted to explore themes from 365 thirty-minute semistructured phone interviews with 32 PWP and 17 CP TeleDREAMS participants. Interviews gauged progress, motivation, and information retention after each weekly module.

Results

Eight salient themes were identified from the interviews, including Understanding the Importance of Advocacy and Becoming Cognizant of Past Advocacy Experiences.

Conclusions

While some findings aligned with weekly module topics, others, such as stated learning preferences and knowledge acquisition of older adults in an educational program, were unexpected. TeleDREAMS may increase interest in community engagement, research participation, and advocacy roles in marginalized and underrepresented participants.

Effectiveness of shared decision-making intervention in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of shared decision-making (SDM) intervention among patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) in terms of decision self-efficacy, control preferences, SDM process, decision satisfaction, and conflict.

METHODS

A total of 130 outpatients with LDDs recruited from orthopedic or rehabilitation clinics were randomly assigned to the SDM intervention (n = 67) or comparison (n = 63) groups. Patients in the intervention group received decision aids (DAs) with decision coaching and those in controlled group received standard educational materials from a health educator. The primary outcome was decision self-efficacy, and secondary outcomes were control preference, SDM process, conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

The SDM intervention significantly improved decision self-efficacy (mean difference [MD] = 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.5, partial η² = 0.05) and reduced conflict (MD = -7.0, 95% CI: -12.2 to -1.9, partial η² = 0.06), especially in patients without family involvement, compared with the health education group. However, no significant between-group differences were observed in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

SDM intervention improved SDM self-efficacy and reduced conflict in patients with LDDs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians can integrate DAs and decision coaching in SDM conversations. SDM intervention seems to engage patients in decision-making, especially those without family involvement.