Dataset Information

Harm reduction interventions in HIV care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives.

ABSTRACT: Background. A culture of stringent drug policy, one-size-fits-all treatment approaches, and drug-related stigma has clouded clinical HIV practice in the United States. The result is a series of missed opportunities in the HIV care environment. An approach which may address the broken relationship between patient and provider is harm reduction-which removes judgment and operates at the patient's stage of readiness. Harm reduction is not a routine part of care; rather, it exists outside clinic walls, exacerbating the divide between compassionate, stigma-free services and the medical system. Methods. Qualitative, phenomenological, semi-structured, individual interviews with patients and providers were conducted in three publicly-funded clinics in Chicago, located in areas of high HIV prevalence and drug use and serving African-American patients (N = 38). A deductive thematic analysis guided the process, including: the creation of an index code list, transcription and verification of interviews, manual coding, notation of emerging themes and refinement of code definitions, two more rounds of coding within AtlasTi, calculation of Cohen's Kappa for interrater reliability, queries of major codes and analysis of additional common themes. Results. Thematic analysis of findings indicated that the majority of patients felt receptive to harm reduction interventions (safer injection counseling, safer stimulant use counseling, overdose prevention information, supply provision) from their provider, and expressed anticipated gratitude for harm reduction information and/or supplies within the HIV care visit, although some were reluctant to talk openly about their drug use. Provider results were mixed, with more receptivity reported by advanced practice nurses, and more barriers cited by physicians. Notable barriers included: role-perceptions, limited time, inadequate training, and the patients themselves. Discussion. Patients are willing to receive harm reduction interventions from their HIV care providers, while provider receptiveness is mixed. The findings reveal critical implications for diffusion of harm reduction into HIV care, including the need to address cited barriers for both patients and providers to ensure feasibility of implementation. Strategies to address these barriers are discussed, and recommendations for further research are also shared.

SUBMITTER: Carlberg-Racich S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4841234 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Harm reduction interventions in HIV care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives.

Carlberg-Racich Suzanne S

PeerJ 20160414

Background. A culture of stringent drug policy, one-size-fits-all treatment approaches, and drug-related stigma has clouded clinical HIV practice in the United States. The result is a series of missed opportunities in the HIV care environment. An approach which may address the broken relationship between patient and provider is harm reduction-which removes judgment and operates at the patient's stage of readiness. Harm reduction is not a routine part of care; rather, it exists outside clinic wal ...[more]

PMID: 27114879

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesGeneral practitioners (GPs) have a key role in supporting young people who present with suicidal behaviour/self-harm. However, little is known about young people's opinions and experiences related to GPs' practices for such presentations, and their decisions to disclose suicidal behaviour/self-harm to GPs. Additionally, existing guidelines for the management of suicide risk and/or self-harm have not incorporated young people's perspectives. This study aimed to explore young people's views and experiences related to the identification, assessment and care of suicidal behaviour and self-harm in primary care settings with GPs.Design, setting and participantsTwo qualitative focus groups were conducted in Perth, Western Australia, with 10 young people in total (M age = 20.67 years; range: 16-24). Data were collected using a semistructured, open-ended interview schedule and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFive major themes were identified from the focus groups. (1) Young people wanted a collaborative dialogue with GPs, which included being asked about suicidal behaviour/self-harm, informed of treatment processes and having autonomy in decision making; (2) young people were concerned with a loss of privacy when disclosing suicidal behaviour/self-harm; (3) young people viewed labels and assessments as problematic and reductionist-disliking the terms 'risk' and 'risk assessment', and assessment approaches that are binary and non-holistic; (4) young people highlighted the importance of GPs' attitudes, with a genuine connection, attentiveness and a non-judgemental demeanour seen as paramount; and (5) young people wanted to be provided with practical support and resources, followed-up, and for GPs to be competent when working with suicidal behaviour/self-harm presentations.ConclusionsOur study identified several concerns and recommendations young people have regarding the identification, assessment and care of suicidal behaviour/self-harm in primary care settings. Taken together, these findings may inform the development of resources for GPs, and support progress in youth-oriented best practice.

Project description:BackgroundU.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis.ObjectiveTo characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals.DesignSemi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ParticipantsPatients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates).Main measuresQualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs.Key resultsWe interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening.ConclusionsUncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Project description:BackgroundPatients retained in HIV care but not on antiretroviral therapy (ART) represent an important part of the HIV care cascade in the United States. Even in an era of more tolerable and efficacious ART, decision making in regards to ART offer and uptake remains complex and calls for exploration of both patient and provider perspectives. We sought to understand reasons for lack of ART usage in patients meeting the Health Resources Services Administration definition of retention as well as what motivated HIV primary care appointment attendance in the absence of ART.Methods and findingsWe conducted a qualitative study consisting of 70 in-depth interviews with ART-naïve and ART-experienced patients off ART and their primary care providers in two urban safety-net HIV clinics in San Francisco and New York. Twenty patients and their providers were interviewed separately at baseline, and 15 dyads were interviewed again after at least 3 mo and another clinic visit in order to understand any ART use in the interim. We applied dyadic analysis to our data. Nearly all patients were willing to consider ART, and 40% of the sample went on ART, citing education on newer antiretroviral drugs, acceptance of HIV diagnosis, social support, and increased confidence in their ability to adhere as facilitators. However, the strength of the provider recommendation of ART played an important role. Many patients had internalized messages from providers that their health was too good to warrant ART. In addition, providers, while demonstrating patient-centered care through sensitivity to patients experiencing psychosocial instability, frequently muted the offer of ART, at times unintentionally. In the absence of ART, lab monitoring, provider relationships, access to social services, opiate pain medications, and acute symptoms motivated care. The main limitations of this study were that treatment as prevention was not explored in depth and that participants were recruited from academic HIV clinics in the US, making the findings most generalizable to this setting.ConclusionsProvider communication with regard to ART is a key focus for further exploration and intervention in order to increase ART uptake for those retained in HIV care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The federal government and other organizations have recommended that healthcare institutions collect and document patient sexual orientation and gender identity (SO/GI) information in order to advance the understanding of the health of sexual and gender minority populations and to combat existing health disparities. Little is known, however, about provider perception of the clinical relevance of, or how they might use, patient SO/GI information in individual care. OBJECTIVE:To explore providers' perspectives on and experiences with collection of patient SO/GI information and how the knowledge of this information may impact clinical care. DESIGN:Qualitative study using in-depth individual interviews of healthcare providers. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty-five healthcare providers, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, from the fields of family medicine, internal medicine, gynecology, and urology within a single healthcare system in an east coast city. APPROACH:Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using principles of grounded theory and thematic analysis to identify themes emerging from the data. KEY RESULTS:Providers recognized the importance of collecting patient SO/GI information for understanding population-level public health concerns and disparities, as well as understanding and respecting the context of patients' lives. However, providers also emphasized the importance of knowing patients' sexual behaviors and physical anatomy for addressing health risk and preventive care needs-and noted the distinction between these characteristics and patient SO/GI. Providers cautioned that assumptions based on knowledge of patient SO/GI may unintentionally obscure accurate profiles of patient behavior and anatomy. CONCLUSIONS:Along with the potential benefits of routine collection of patient SO/GI, it is important that providers continue to inquire about patient behaviors and anatomy to inform individual risk and needs assessments. Findings from this study can inform the development of guidelines, trainings, and practices for incorporation of patient SO/GI along with existing assessment practices to improve individual and population health.

Project description:Background: Deficits in quality of care for patients with heart failure (HF) contribute to high mortality in this population. This qualitative study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to high-quality HF care in Kerala, India. Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of health care providers (n=13), patients and caregivers (n=14). Additionally, focus group discussions (n=3) were conducted with patients and their caregivers. All interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Textual data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Patients' motivation to change their lifestyle behaviours after HF diagnosis and active follow-up calls from health care providers to check on patients' health status were important enablers of high-quality care. Health care providers' advice on substance use often motivated patients to stop smoking and consuming alcohol. Although patients expected support from their family members, the level of caregiver support for patients varied, with some patients receiving strong support from caregivers and others receiving minimal support. Emotional stress and lack of structured care plans for patients hindered patients' self-management of their condition. Further, high patient loads often limited the time health care providers had to provide advice on self-management options. Nevertheless, the availability of experienced nursing staff to support patients improved care within health care facilities. Finally, initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy was perceived as complex by health care providers due to multiple coexisting chronic conditions in HF patients. Conclusions: Structured plans for self-management of HF and more time for patients and health care providers to interact during clinical visits may enable better clinical handover with patients and family members, and thereby improve adherence to self-care options. Quality improvement interventions should also address the stress and emotional concerns of HF patients.

Project description:BackgroundFor more than a decade, the Patient-Centered Medical Home model has been a guiding vision for the modernization of primary care systems. In Canada, Ontario's Family Health Teams (FHTs) were designed in the mid-2000s with the medical home model in mind. These primary care clinics aim to provide accessible, comprehensive, and person-centered primary care services to communities across Ontario. Their services typically include mental health care for people experiencing common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety disorders. It remains unclear, however, whether the mental health care delivered within FHTs is consistent with person-centered care approaches. In the current study, we aimed to explore the perspectives of FHT providers on the care delivered to people with common mental disorders to determine whether, and to what extent, they believed this care was person-centered.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative grounded theory study involving interviews with 65 health professionals and administrators from 18 FHTs across Ontario. Transcripts were coded using a three-step process of initial, focused, and axial coding that mixed inductive and deductive approaches informed by sensitizing concepts on person-centeredness.ResultsPractices and challenges associated with the delivery of mental health care in a person-centered way were captured by several themes regrouped into five domains: (1) patient as unique person, (2) patient-provider relationship, (3) sharing power and responsibility, (4) connecting to family and community, and (5) creating person-centered care environments. FHT providers perceived that they delivered person-centered care by delivering mental health care that was responsive, flexible, and consistent with biopsychosocial approaches. They emphasized the importance of creating long-lasting relationships with patients grounded in empathy and trust. Their challenges included being able to ensure continuity of care, adequately prioritizing patients' mental health issues, and meaningfully engaging patients and families as partners in care.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that FHT providers have adopted a range of person-centered practices for people with common mental disorders. However, greater attention to practices such as shared decision making, supporting self-management, and involving families in care would strengthen person-centeredness and bring teams closer to the Patient-Centered Medical Home vision.

Dataset Information

Harm reduction interventions in HIV care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives.

Publications

Harm reduction interventions in HIV care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets