Personne :
Vaillancourt, Hugues

En cours de chargement...
Photo de profil
Adresse électronique
Date de naissance
Projets de recherche
Structures organisationnelles
Nom de famille
Institut sur la nutrition et les aliments fonctionnels, Université Laval
Identifiant Canadiana

Résultats de recherche

Voici les éléments 1 - 2 sur 2
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making : a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument
    (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2015-07-22) Turcotte, Stéphane; Robitaille, Hubert; Vaillancourt, Hugues; LeBlanc, Annie; Couët, Nicolas; Desroches, Sophie; Elwyn, Glyn; Légaré, France
    Background: We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this. Objective: To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. Search strategy: We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001–12) and gathered further data through networking. Inclusion criteria: (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health-care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. Data extraction: Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. Main results: We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient-involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making (SDM), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0–100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associatedwith higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM (n = 8/9) and duration of consultations (n = 8/15). Conclusions: Whatever the clinical context, few health-care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Assessing patients' involvement in decision making during the nutritional consultation with a dietitian
    (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2014-07-17) Lapointe, Annie.; Vaillancourt, Hugues; Desroches, Sophie; Deschênes, Sarah-Maude; Légaré, France
    Background Shared decision making (SDM) represents an interesting approach to optimize the impact of dietary treatment, but there is no evidence that SDM is commonly integrated into diet-related health care. Objective To assess the extent to which dietitians involve patients in decisions about dietary treatment. Methods We audiotaped dietitians conducting nutritional consultations with their patients, and we transcribed the tapes verbatim. Three trained raters independently evaluated the content of the nutritional consultations using a coding frame based on the 12 items of the French-language version of the OPTION scale, a validated and reliable third-observer instrument designed to assess patients’ involvement by examining specific health professionals’ behaviours. Coding was facilitated by the qualitative research software NVivo 8. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha and inter-rater reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results Of the 40 dietitians eligible to participate in the study, 19 took part. We recruited one patient per participating dietitian. The overall mean OPTION score was 29 ± 8% [range, 0% (no patient involvement in the decision] to 100% [high patient involvement)]. The mean duration of consultations was 50 ± 26 min. The OPTION score was positively correlated with the duration of the consultation (r = 0.65, P < 0.01). Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were both good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72; ICC = 0.65). Conclusion This study is the first to use a framework based on the OPTION scale to report on dietitians’ involvement of patients in decisions about patients’ dietary treatment. The results suggest that involvement is suboptimal. Interventions to increase patients’ involvement in diet-related decision making are indicated.