92 resultados para Routine Based Intervention
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES Primary care physicians (PCPs) should prescribe faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening based on their patient's values and preferences. However, there are wide variations between PCPs in the screening method prescribed. The objective was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on PCPs' intent to offer FIT or colonoscopy on an equal basis. DESIGN Survey before and after training seminars, with a parallel comparison through a mailed survey to PCPs not attending the training seminars. SETTING All PCPs in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Of 592 eligible PCPs, 133 (22%) attended a seminar and 106 (80%) filled both surveys. 109 (24%) PCPs who did not attend the seminars returned the mailed survey. INTERVENTION A 2 h-long interactive seminar targeting PCP knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding offering a choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was PCP intention of having their patients screened with FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions (between 40% and 60% each). Secondary outcomes were the perceived role of PCPs in screening decisions (from paternalistic to informed decision-making) and correct answer to a clinical vignette. RESULTS Before the seminars, 8% of PCPs reported that they had equal proportions of their patients screened for CRC by FIT and colonoscopy; after the seminar, 33% foresaw having their patients screened in equal proportions (p<0.001). Among those not attending, there was no change (13% vs 14%, p=0.8). Of those attending, there was no change in their perceived role in screening decisions, while the proportion responding correctly to a clinical vignette increased (88-99%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS An interactive training seminar increased the proportion of physicians with the intention to prescribe FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions.
Resumo:
Introduction: Self-help computer-based programs are easily accessible and cost-effective interventions with a great recruitment potential. However, each program is different and results of meta-analyses may not apply to each new program; therefore, evaluations of new programs are warranted. The aim of this study was to assess the marginal efficacy of a computer-based, individually tailored program (the Coach) over and above the use of a comprehensive Internet smoking cessation website. Methods: A two-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. The control group only accessed the website, whereas the intervention group received the Coach in addition. Follow-up was conducted by e-mail after three and six months (self-administrated questionnaires). Of 1120 participants, 579 (51.7%) responded after three months and 436 (38.9%) after six months. The primary outcome was self-reported smoking abstinence over four weeks. Results: Counting dropouts as smokers, there were no statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups in smoking cessation rates after three months (20.2% vs. 17.5%, p¼0.25, odds ratio (OR)¼1.20) and six months (17% vs. 15.5%, p¼0.52, OR¼1.12). Excluding dropouts from the analysis, there were statistically significant differences after three months (42% vs. 31.6%, p¼0.01, OR¼1.57), but not after six months (46.1% vs. 37.8%, p¼0.081, OR¼1.41). The program also significantly increased motivation to quit after three months and self-efficacy after three and six months. Discussion: An individually tailored program delivered via the Internet and by e-mail in addition to a smoking cessation website did not significantly increase smoking cessation rates, but it increased motivation to quit and self-efficacy.