Biomedical subjects

T Hares

Publications and source records attributed to T Hares.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1995

Who should give lifestyle advice in general practice and what factors influence attendance at health promotion clinics? Survey of patients' views.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion activity in general practice has increased greatly since 1990. A large proportion of this work is undertaken by practice nurses. Little is known about patients' views about the providers of health promotion or their views about general practice health promotion clinics. AIM: A study was carried out in 1992 to determine patients' views about the provision of health promotion advice by general practitioners and practice nurses and their views about attending health promotion clinics. METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1750 patients aged 16 years and over from five general practices in south Tyneside. The questionnaire explored patients' preferences regarding health promotion advice from the general practitioner or practice nurse in relation to four areas of lifestyle advice and factors that might encourage patients to attend a health promotion clinic. RESULTS: A response rate of 75% was obtained from 1639 eligible patients. Receiving health promotion advice from either the general practitioner or the practice nurse was the most commonly preferred option expressed by patients overall. The ability of health promotion clinic staff to deal with patients' concerns about their illness and short waiting times were more likely to influence patients' attendance at health promotion clinics than the presence of a general practitioner or practice nurse. CONCLUSION: In the present study, many patients found health advice received from practice nurses and general practitioners equally acceptable. However, it was the ability of health professionals to respond to patients' health concerns in the health promotion clinic rather than the type of health professional running the clinic that was important for patients.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1993

The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice?

Qualitative methods are increasingly recognized as valuable, yet practitioners face difficult decisions in their choice of method and the process of analysis. The nominal group technique combines quantitative and qualitative data collection in a group setting, and avoids problems of group dynamics associated with other group methods such as brainstorming, Delphi and focus groups. Idea generation and problem solving are combined in a structured group process, which encourages and enhances the participation of group members. The stages involved in conducting a nominal group are described, and practical problems of its use in a health care setting are discussed with reference to a study of the priorities of care of diabetic patients, carers and health professionals. Some potential applications of the technique in audit and exploratory research are also outlined.

Data Collection↗

PubMed1992

Diabetes care: who are the experts?

OBJECTIVES: To identify issues that patients and professionals consider important in diabetes care and differences in their priorities for care and to determine patients' and professionals' judgements of the relative importance of their chosen priorities. DESIGN: Structured group interviews using the nominal group technique. SETTING: Five district health authorities on Tyneside. SUBJECTS: Five nominal groups: expert (seven), non-expert (seven) health care professionals; insulin dependent (four), non-insulin dependent patients (eight); and carers of diabetic patients (eight). MAIN MEASURES: Items important in diabetes care to each nominal group (themes of care), ranked into a series of "top 10" items for each group, and allocated a score according to relative importance to individual members; scores were standardised by individual weighting and group weighting for comparison within and between groups. RESULTS: Patients and professionals agreed that information given to patients, interaction between professionals and patients, patient autonomy, and access were important for good diabetes care, but the importance assigned to each differed. Thus the professionals emphasised empathy and aspects of good communication and patients the desire to know enough to live a "normal" life. Differences were also found within the patient groups; these related to changes in patients' needs at specific points in the development of their illness and in their orientations to care. CONCLUSION: Patients differ from professionals in their orientation to diabetes care, and they can, and should, be involved in setting priorities for care. Since these priorities are dynamic further work is needed to explore the nature of patient satisfaction with diabetes care.

Analysis of Variance↗