Dosis 1/2018

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Assessing the public’s attitudes and receptivity to follow-up communication from healthcare providers ➔ Parisa Aslani a * PhD parisa.aslani@sydney.edu.au ➔ Vivien Tong a PhD vivien.tong@sydney.edu.au ➔ Ines Krass a PhD ines.krass@sydney.edu.au a Faculty of Pharmacy, Pharmacy and Bank Building (A15), Science Road, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia. *Correspondence ➔ Stephen Robson MBus Healthy Thinking Group, 154 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia steve@healthliteracyaustralia.com.au © DOSIS nr0 1/<strong>2018</strong> 8 © Suomen Farmasialiitto ry
SUMMARY Introduction: Requiring patients to consent to receiving follow-up health information from healthcare professionals (HCPs) is not universal and varies between countries. Limited research has explored the public’s views on an opt-out process for receiving such follow-up from HCPs in Australia, where the current norm is an opt-in process. Aims: To explore the Australian public’s attitudes, perceptions, and receptivity to an opt-out approach for the provision of tailored health-related information to patients by registered HCPs. Materials and Methods: Six focus group discussions (1–1.5 hours in duration) were conducted with a total of 46 participants in Sydney during October-November 2016. People’s views on an opt-in or opt-out approach to receiving ongoing follow-up health information were sought. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results: Mixed opinions were identified regarding opt-in or opt-out approaches to receiving information. A few participants queried the need for consent (opt-in), as it was seen as the HCP’s duty of care to followup and provide information. An opt-out process was seen to facilitate informed choice. Those preferring to opt-in felt it would offer them more control in receiving follow-up and could help ease pressures on HCPs. They agreed that consent was only needed once for a HCP to provide ongoing information. The logistics of offering follow-up information services at every consultation was queried. Previous follow-up may influence preferences for an opt-in or opt-out process. Conclusions: There is some support for opt-out, HCP-provided follow-up information. Further research is needed to quantify broader population views on the consent process for follow-up information and factors that influence these views. Keywords: Medicines information, health information, opt-in, opt-out, preferences © Suomen Farmasialiitto ry 9 © DOSIS nr0 1/<strong>2018</strong>
Page 1 and 2: Farmaseuttinen aikakauskirja Vol. 3
Page 3 and 4: PÄÄKIRJOITUS Suomi on lääkeinfo
Page 5 and 6: PÄÄKIRJOITUS Open Access Dosis ja
Page 7: ➔ Minna Matikainen Medical Adviso
Page 11 and 12: were transcribed verbatim and subse
Page 13 and 14: for consent as information provisio
Page 15 and 16: Table 3. Exemplar quotes Theme and
Page 17 and 18: ous follow-up experiences being pre
Page 19 and 20: REFERENCES Privacy Act 1988, Austra
Page 21 and 22: SUMMARY Introduction Adequate infor
Page 23 and 24: Table 1. Comparison of content incl
Page 25 and 26: DATA ANALYSIS Discussions were audi
Page 27 and 28: Table 4. Participant opinions and s
Page 29 and 30: CONCLUSIONS Regardless of leaflet a
Page 31 and 32: Raynor DK: User testing in developi
Page 33 and 34: TIIVISTELMÄ Näköisnimiset (Look
Page 35 and 36: dokumentoinnista ja lääkkeiden m
Page 37 and 38: inhimillisen erehdyksen seurauksia,
Page 39 and 40: Taulukko 1: Kartoituksessa havaitut
Page 41 and 42: SUMMARY Look-alike, sound-alike med
Page 43 and 44: © Suomen Farmasialiitto ry 43 © D
Page 45 and 46: TIIVISTELMÄ Johdanto Lääkehoito
Page 47 and 48: Kansainvälinen tutkimustieto lää
Page 49 and 50: esistenssiä tutkittiin tyypin 2 di
Page 51 and 52: Taulukko 1. Yhteenveto lääkehoito
Page 53 and 54: (Th=terveydenhoitaja, Sh=sairaanhoi
Page 55 and 56: LÄHTEET Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Bryne
Page 57 and 58: an increased risk and severity of m
Page 59 and 60:
Onko sinulla julkaistavaksi sopivaa
Page 61 and 62:
TIIVISTELMÄ Johdanto: Eläimiä tu
Page 63 and 64:
Microsoft Office Excel -ohjelmaan l
Page 65 and 66:
oli lääkkeitä, joita ei voinut l
Page 67 and 68:
myksiä, joissa tiedusteltiin ihmis
Page 69 and 70:
drugs mentioned (15 % both). Majori
Page 71 and 72:
Dosis - alansa ainoa suomenkielinen
Page 73 and 74:
TIIVISTELMÄ Johdanto: Lääkkeet o
Page 75 and 76:
laeilla, asetuksilla, ohjeistuksill
Page 77 and 78:
mushetkellä. Osana lääkeinformaa
Page 79 and 80:
SUMMARY Medicines in schools - Teac
Page 81 and 82:
Nutbeam D: Health literacy as a pub
Page 83 and 84:
TIIVISTELMÄ Johdanto: Unettomuuden
Page 85 and 86:
säännöllistämiseen (Kajaste 200
Page 87 and 88:
Kuva 1. Tutkimusasetelma (kuvassa v
Page 89 and 90:
että unettomilla saattoi olla puut
Page 91 and 92:
Taulukko 1. Väitöskirjan keskeist
Page 93 and 94:
tus, vaikka siinä onkin edelleen k
Page 95 and 96:
Gerardin M, Victorri-Vigneau C, Gue
Page 97:
Tuomi J, Sarajärvi A: Laadullinen
show all

Dosis 1/2018

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?