Abstract
Aim
This study explored how patients, caregivers, clinicians, designers, and funders who worked collaboratively on a health education program experienced its design. The program was based on evidence-based medicine and knowledge transmission.
Subject and methods
Through exploratory qualitative research, the authors conducted 21 semistructured interviews, collected six nonparticipatory observations, and conducted a documentary analysis. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis, producing rich descriptions about the participants’ experiences. The researchers’ interpretations were validated through peer review.
Results
Three themes were revealed by the findings: background, values, and tensions. All participants had a range of assumptions about this experience regarding which evidence-based recommendations should be prioritized and disseminated to patients/caregivers in program implementation. These assumptions were based on participants’ beliefs about how people make evidence-informed decisions, allowing them to take charge of their health. The authors found a gap between these assumptions and the purposes of the educational program.
Conclusion
Although health education programs aim to foster patients’ informed decision making and health empowerment, in our case we found some assumptions that were not in line with the objectives of the educational program. We hypothesize that some gaps in the program design, derived from different assumptions, such as (a) conflicts of particular interests, (b) knowledge gaps about health-disease processes, and (c) power asymmetries between doctors and patients/caregivers, could hinder the goals of health education (e.g., engagement) in the practice of evidence-based medicine.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Improving the health of people has been one of the main purposes of the broad field of health promotion (Roaldsen et al. 2022). Patient education has been used to achieve this aim (Nutbeam 2021). Defining patient education depends on biomedical and technological advances, the cultural differences of a population, and the socioeconomic policies of each country (Bridges et al. 2010). This study adopted the health education (HE) theoretical framework to define patient education. HE emphasizes the teaching and pedagogical strategies that health professionals provide to patients – and, as of recently, to caregivers (Epstein and Street 2007) – on the health–disease process to improve their lifestyles (Mbah et al. 2021; Pueyo-Garrigues et al. 2019).
Lorig and Holman (2003) claim that HE emerged in opposition to the paternalistic model of health care, in which patients were defined as passive subjects of health decisions made by clinicians. When health care began to focus on respecting patients’ preferences, needs, and values, HE began to gain momentum. HE was also promoted by several studies finding that patient-centered health care improves health outcomes (Drake et al. 2022). Supporting patients in making informed decisions, changing behavior, and gaining adherence are considered fundamental to HE (Petersson et al. 2022). Based on the Patient Health Engagement Model (Graffigna and Barello 2018), Bigi (2016, 2021) argues that engagement is a gradual process whereby patients progress through several phases, from vulnerability to awareness that their health condition is part of their life course. In this sense, Bigi places engagement (i.e., a patient’s positive attitude toward developing autonomy to manage their disease) as a prerequisite to decision making, behavior change and adherence. Thus, it seems that patients who are better informed may be more equipped to actively participate in decision-making and change their behavior because they are more willing to identify unmet needs, thus improving their confidence and sense of purpose (Jacob et al. 2022).
Despite the need to place patients at the center of health care actions, many HE programs have been designed by medical experts in hospital contexts (Baur et al. 2018; Dogba et al. 2019; Yu et al. 2016; Ferreira et al. 2021). The evaluation of HE programs that involve patients and caregivers in the design process outside of hospitals has received little attention. Few studies have explored HE programs aiming at informing patients/caregivers from an evidence-based perspective and considering their opinions on how information transfer should be conducted. Therefore, understanding how HE promotes engagement from this participatory perspective remains a gap in knowledge.
The present study aimed to qualitatively explore, using a responsive evaluation model (Stake 2011), the design of an education program called Health Vector. The program targeted patients with chronic noncommunicable diseases (CNCDs), caregivers, and health professionals within the context of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and information transfer. The research questions were as follows: What did this HE program involve? How do stakeholders who participated in the program talk about the positive aspects and challenges of this experience?
Methods
Setting
Health Vector was an HE program that began in late 2018 in Bogota, Colombia. It was financed by local government resources, approximately 1.5 million dollars, to strengthen the policy of knowledge transfer to the population and thus improve health. The program aimed to address the fact that patients/caregivers sometimes adopted health practices not informed by the body of evidence. This problem limits the evaluation of the risks and benefits of different options (Hoffmann et al. 2014). Health Vector was led by a team of researchers from two local hospitals and a national institute of health. From November 2018 to June 2021, the first phase of the project took place, and we were involved as external collaborators to qualitatively evaluate this phase.
The first phase involved participatory design, which used the approaches of EBM, shared understanding of medicine (SUM) and information transfer, through workshop activities (i.e., panels) and participants’ training in EBM. The panels consisted of meetings of patients, caregivers, and health professionals to present, analyze, discuss, and make agreements about the relevance of 527 evidence-based recommendations (EBRs) that patients/caregivers with a CNCD should practice to improve their health outcomes. Participants prioritized and reduced the EBRs to 40 messages that would then be disseminated to patients/caregivers through different media channels (e.g., emails, mobile messages, print-outs, and web pages) in a second phase of the program (See the example illustrated in Box 1).
Box 1. An example of the prioritized EBRs
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and physical exercise Performing supervised exercise routines will help the patient improve their breathing, mental health, and physical and metabolic state. Who should exercise? All patients with COPD with no exacerbations in the last 6 to 8 weeks should exercise. How should patients with COPD exercise? Personalized routines should be performed for at least 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week. It is recommended that they perform these routines in pulmonary rehabilitation programs organized by institutions, with which they can define their personalized exercise plan. Sessions held within an institution should be supervised by health professionals. Sessions at home should be accompanied by a caregiver. Remember to guide the patient in following their routine. Engaging in continued exercise at home will improve their quality of life. Good practices for caregivers: Consult with a doctor about exercise programs and pulmonary rehabilitation for the patient. Use timers to ensure that the patient complies with the minimum time for their routine. After finishing the program, guide the patient in exercising at home. What is the evidence? The results of 31 studies show that patients with COPD who actively participate in exercise programs significantly improve their quality of life and exercise capacity. Eleven of these studies show that such patients improve on the following variables* (Measurement performed with the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire: Dyspnea, Fatigue, Emotional Function, Activities of Daily Living). Where does this information come from? 1. D. Londoño Trujillo et al., Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) en población adulta. Acta Médica Colombiana; Vol. 39 Núm. 2 Supl. 3 (2014). 2. Lacasse Y, Goldstein R, Lasserson T, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. Cited on June 21, 2021. Available at: https://bit.ly/3vONGq6 |
Study design
This study adopted an exploratory qualitative design because the objective of the research was to understand the experiences of the participants (Hayes 2022). The research design was also based on the theory of responsive evaluation (van Heijster et al. 2020). Therefore, we sought to understand the merits of the educational program design.
Participants and data collection
Patients, caregivers, general practitioners, specialists, program designers, and funders who interacted directly or indirectly during the training sessions and the panels participated in this study. Purposeful sampling was used to select participants. They described their experiences and perceptions during the development of the program design. Twenty-one semistructured interviews and six nonparticipant observations of the training sessions and panels were conducted, and a documentary analysis of the 40 prioritized EBRs was conducted from April to October 2021. The interviews lasted an average of 37 minutes and were videotaped and transcribed verbatim to maintain the fidelity of the narratives. The observations lasted an average of 3 hours, and the researchers kept field notes about what happened in the training sessions and panels.
Analysis
The information collected was analyzed with the interpretive approach of thematic analysis. This followed three steps: the initial coding of the information; the review of the codes by the research team; and the organization of findings into categories, themes, and theoretical narratives (Cohen et al. 2017). For the coding of the information, we used NVivo 12® software. A researcher reviewed each of the documents in detail and assigned initial codes to the textual units with meanings relevant to our research interests. Then the other researchers reviewed the justifiability of the interpretations in the first coding. For this, the codes and their text units were exported to a spreadsheet. During 10 sessions (average length = 3 hours), we discussed whether the interpretations of the codes corresponded to the meanings of the texts. In cases of disagreement, we debated the arguments for and against the interpretation and proceeded, by consensus, to accept, adjust, or eliminate the code. In addition, the first approaches to the theoretical narrative were applied at this point through the creation of memos, which included marginal comments, opinions, or possible explanations of the phenomenon studied (Silverstein et al. 2006).
Next, the codes were grouped into categories and themes during two 3-hour sessions, with the participation of all authors. To do this, we evaluated the narratives associated with each code based on the research question, and we grouped them according to their most significant characteristics. In total, 13 categories emerged and were organized into three essential themes.
Results
We identified three themes from the participants’ experiences in working collaboratively on prioritizing EBRs in the training sessions and on the panels: background, values, and issues. The themes revealed the different assumptions participants had about the goals, processes, and possible outcomes of the educational program.
-
(a)
Background
This theme covered three categories: concerns, expectations, and meanings. In these categories, participants identified the reasons why this program was relevant. The theories used by the designers of the program were introduced to frame it, while at the same time explaining the expected future results. Some participants were concerned about the historically complex problems of educating patients about their health. They recognized the absence of successful mechanisms to transfer the information presented in clinical practice guidelines to the citizens of Bogota.
Participants were also concerned that patients/caregivers were not included in the traditional processes of scientific information transfer. They reported that these processes have paid little attention to the beliefs, preferences, and values of patients/caregivers. For example, eating certain types of foods with a bad taste can cause a patient to not follow certain scientific recommendations. Consequently, the designers of the program placed the prioritization of EBRs in an epistemological paradigm that is part of the spectrum of EBM known as SUM. Under this approach, doctors and patients/caregivers should make decisions jointly considering the beliefs, preferences, and feelings of all parties.
The designers of the program conceived the need to convey information on recommendations of healthy practices to certain groups of patients/caregivers so that they would make informed, evidence-based decisions with the goal of promoting their empowerment. They started from the idea that it is necessary to influence the knowledge of patients/caregivers on the available evidence to obtain the best outcomes, assuming that gaining new knowledge can change health behaviors. In other words:
“The first step is the issue of knowledge, which one knows has few real impacts, but it is a necessary step, that is, it is essential. In other words, one cannot change a behavior if one does not have the knowledge of what you’re going to do, of what you’re going to have to do […] So when one, say, says that this knowledge has the power to turn it into a behavior modification, that is where the methods come in, too, to do it, then evaluate if the person has adherence, that is, [if] they are already doing what they learned or knew.” (I03)
Although some participants declared some skepticism toward these assumptions, the program designers planned strategies that would allow a better transfer of scientific information and thus influence the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of patients/caregivers. In this sense, the participants expected that conveying the EBRs could generate a significant long-term impact on morbidity and mortality rates from CNCDs. Some also mentioned that they expected a transformation in the dynamics of the doctor–patient/caregiver relationship. For example, patients are empowered with scientific knowledge and thus can “challenge doctors in decision-making” about their health.
To achieve this, the program designers implemented training on EBM and then ran the panels to prioritize the most important EBRs. In doing this, they wanted patients/caregivers and general practitioners and specialists to have a dialog to obtain different points of view on the usefulness of EBRs.
-
(b)
Values
This theme included the main aspects that the participants perceived to be achieved through the trainings and panels for prioritizing the EBRs. It covered six categories that denoted learning, transformative actions, methodological successes, and relevant recognitions of the local reality through the experiences of those who coped with CNCDs in the framework of the Colombian health system.
All stakeholders reported that a space of interaction in which different perspectives converged had been fostered. For the patients, for example, the discussion held in the panels allowed them to converse with medical specialists about the adequate performance of certain health practices such that, supported by the evidence, they could be modified. Patients also highlighted that patients should not be made to feel obligated to adopt EBRs, as if through scolding, in complying with certain decisions regarding the management of their disease. The following account of a patient explains it as follows:
“So then it was not imposed, it was not: ‘I am a doctor and I know more than you.’ No, that topic never crossed anyone’s mind, and everything was thoroughly discussed, very calm, the Vector talks, the moderators, even though they also said [...]: ‘Ah no, I know more than you and you know less than I do there, since I am the doctor.’ No, they as doctors evaluated things clinically and one, as a patient, could also express their point of view without being involved in the clinical issue, so the most important conclusion is that you have to have a lot of empathy and a lot of trust in the treating doctor.” (PC02)
Another notable aspect was the interaction between specialists and general practitioners in primary health care. These individuals expressed in the panels the fragmentation between levels of care of the health system and felt that their interaction was crucial to understanding how decisions are made at different levels of health care. For primary-care physicians, the richness of the panels was found in the knowledge of experts in diverse subspecialties from different institutions (e.g., cardiology and pneumology), which allowed them to recognize ways to review and apply clinical practice guidelines.
Likewise, it was valuable for the participating physicians to see the interest shown by patients/caregivers in the performance of certain health practices. In the same sense, the recognition of the importance of the role of the caregiver in the process of treating diseases was also mentioned as a learning process for health professionals. In traditional consultation scenarios, the relationship can be reduced to the doctor and their patient, while the caregiver can be isolated from this relationship. The role of the caregiver in the panels was also identified in the field observations.
According to some program designers, another achievement was that many patients demonstrated management of concepts and ideas associated with EBM, making contributions from notions such as cost-effectiveness and the quality of the evidence. This was achieved by training the patients about theories and positions they were going to encounter in the panels. However, to encourage the participation of patients in the panels, the role of a moderator was necessary to translate the technical language of the EBR. With this, it was possible for everyone to discuss the prioritization, ensuring the exchange of knowledge and attitudes in the panel. The moderator also went through a learning process, since effective participation of all the actors was facilitated only to the extent that it was ensured that they understood the issues to be worked through in the panel.
-
(c)
Tensions
Some issues related to training and the panels were discussed. Four categories emerged under this theme: conflicts, barriers, difficulties, and challenges. Although the categories seemed to express certain similarities and while there may have been overlapping aspects, each category encompassed a different dimension of the problems experienced. For example, an issue arose when the type of EBR that needed to be prioritized was discussed. Some patients demanded including nonpharmacological EBRs (e.g., “Performing supervised exercise routines will help the patient improve their breathing, mental health, and physical and metabolic state”) because they stated that the treatment seemed to be focused only on pharmacological aspects while neglecting follow-up and understanding of its impact on the disease. Although it may seem that these recommendations are obvious, patients felt that it was difficult to understand and apply them.
Some program designers recognized that the lack of evidence on nonpharmacological recommendations is linked to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for generating a significant number of scientific studies on pharmacological management. Thus, fewer articles focus on nonpharmacological treatments. With these considerations, it was indicated that the absence (or weakness) of evidence does not necessarily mean that nonpharmacological EBRs should be discarded. In contrast, in some panels, it was recognized that prioritizing nonpharmacological EBRs was a powerful proposal that set up a counterhegemonic stance, thus providing a useful alternative for the patient while supporting the adoption of new paradigms in the management of CNCDs. At the end of the panels, the ratio of pharmacological to nonpharmacological EBRs was approximately 3:1.
On the other hand, there were differences between the interests of physicians and those of patients/caregivers regarding the purposes of the panels. For example, both health professionals and researchers indicated that some patients inquired about their personal treatment during the prioritization of the EBRs, disrupting the dynamics of the discussion in the panels and generating a disconnected pursuit of their primary objectives. Even so, and given that health professionals perceived the objective of the panels differently, some of the patients’/caregivers’ doubts were not addressed in depth, and the discussion stayed within the bounds of EBRs, as initially stipulated. Thus, the participation of patients/caregivers was directed toward understanding the limitations that an EBR could have when changing a health practice in its context. Additionally, physicians expressed an interest in the proper implementation of clinical practice guidelines, while patients/caregivers prioritized restoring their health.
Another issue for some patients/caregivers concerned the difficulty of understanding the technical language of some EBRs. One caregiver expressed the following:
“... I felt that my participation was not very active because I felt that there were things that I did not get or that my contribution could not be very significant [...] In fact, some EBRs that we looked at were more geared to the doctors than the patients, they could not be oriented to the patient but to the doctor, so I feel that because of that I felt a little disconnected from the process, because they were - as I mentioned earlier - more complex, more specific.” (PC02)
That said, there were aspects of the prioritization of the EBRs which drew the participants’ attention given their implications. Several patients highlighted the need for an interdisciplinary approach for prioritizing and implementing EBRs. This was expressed in requirements such as incorporating a mental health dimension that would recognize the emotional impact that living with a CNCD can generate for patients/caregivers.
Another discussion focused on the importance of the social and cultural contexts of patients/caregivers with respect to recommended health practices. An example of this was an EBR, later excluded from prioritization, that suggested maintaining a Mediterranean diet, which was insensitive to the reality of local gastronomy and was not affordable to the entire Bogota population. Some difficulties accessing certain medications due to complex administrative procedures were mentioned, which could jeopardize adherence to treatment. Insufficient infrastructure and a lack of clinical implements among health providers were perceived as something that could hinder some of the exams that appeared in some EBRs.
Discussion
This study aimed to understand the lived experiences of a group of patients, caregivers, clinicians, designers, and funders of a health education program in the participatory design stage (i.e., training sessions and panels held to prioritize EBRs). The data reveal that stakeholders had different assumptions about the goals, processes, and possible outcomes of transferring EBRs to patients with CNDCs depending on their expectations about the information needed to change the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of target patients. From the findings, we understand that the different assumptions of the different stakeholders about the intervention produced some gaps in this program: gaps in interests, knowledge, and power. These gaps and their possible implications for HE are discussed below.
First, we found a gap between individual and collective interests of the intervention, which was represented in the unbalanced relationship between pharmacological and nonpharmacological EBRs. It was also reported that the large volume of research on pharmacological management could be derived from the particular interests of pharmaceutical companies in increasing their profits. Although nonpharmacological recommendations, such as changes in eating patterns and patient education workshops, have been considered crucial for the management of CNCDs (Ye et al. 2020), in our case, they were addressed less.
We hypothesize that this finding has implications for the hidden curriculum of the HE program. Skelton (1998) states that patient education contains a hidden curriculum that thoughtlessly reproduces particular interests. This finding is consistent with that reported by other authors (Mathew and Clase 2022; Jureidini and McHenry 2022), who have warned about particular interests of economic origin that generate conflicts in the fields of HE and EBM. This interest gap could hinder the learning of patients/caregivers about evidence-based information due to the scarce attention given to nonmedicinal recommendations on healthy practices that are also important for patients/caregivers.
The second gap refers to knowledge of health–disease processes. That is, knowledge about how biology, culture, history, and context improve or deteriorate health in different ways and at different intensities throughout life (Quintero et al. 2016). Specifically, patients/caregivers perceived that EBM training was valuable for recognizing and reflecting on their beliefs, preferences, and values regarding healthy practices. However, these individuals said also that they should have been taught to understand health–disease processes because this would have encouraged their participation in the panels. Other studies have found that knowledge gaps in health–disease processes can negatively influence the way in which patients adopt healthy practices based on scientific evidence (Khatib et al. 2014; Tan et al. 2017). Consequently, the importance of patients learning about the best healthy practices based on evidence and their health-disease processes has been highlighted (Baky et al. 2018; Shim and Hwang 2017).
The last gap relates to the power asymmetries between different stakeholders of the HE program. One of the participants in this study reported that the purpose of disseminating EBRs is to empower patients with scientific knowledge to “challenge physicians in decision-making.” In our case, we found that the participants with greater knowledge had greater decision-making power in the panels to prioritize the EBRs. Knowledge gaps occurred not only between health professionals and patients/caregivers but also between general practitioners and specialists, the latter being the ones at the pinnacle of knowledge. Therefore, the interests that frequently prevailed in decision-making to prioritize EBRs were those who held this privileged position. This does not mean that the other interests were silenced or rejected; they only played a different role in decision-making, more related to explaining their experiences with the recommendation.
The use of knowledge as a tool of power to make decisions in health can be understood in light of postcolonial theory. Eichbaum et al. (2021) explain that medicine has historically perpetuated, intentionally or not, the colonialist mentality that there are superior (i.e., colonizers/knowers) and inferior people (i.e., colonized/nonknowers). Thus, under this approach, knowledge can be used to socially determine how decisions about the health of patients are made. We are not suggesting that the Health Vector program intended to oppress the uninformed. Rather, our findings suggest that although the program adopted a participatory design, at certain points collaboration was not evidenced in practice due to asymmetries of power in decision-making, which were due to differences in medical knowledge.
Yet, if intervention designers assume that informed decision-making should be done through collaboration between doctors and patients, power asymmetries that emerge from knowledge gaps may affect the ability—or likelihood—of patients/caregivers taking part in these decisions. Therefore, conveying EBRs alone could be insufficient in modifying health practices if the power relations between doctors and patients/caregivers (or between doctors of different levels of care) are asymmetric. In this sense, the program would need mechanisms beyond the conveyance of EBRs to balance the power in the doctor–patient relationship.
Using the Patient Health Engagement Model as a lens to understand the three gaps found in this study led us to identify that the next phase of the intervention (i.e., broadly disseminating EBRs to patients) may face a significant challenge of reactance. Reynolds-Tylus (2019) defines reactance as patients’ resistance to persuasive messages to change their behavior, which in turn can hinder engagement, even in the face of evidence. The development of reactance has been partially explained by patients’ feelings that they are losing their freedom by having certain health behavior changes imposed on them. Although patient education is proposed as a way of reducing reactance (Favaretti et al. 2022), providing too much information to a patient can be counterproductive because they may perceive a greater threat to their freedom, that is, an intent to control their daily decisions about their health. This perception may generate resistance and nonadherence. Different stakeholders’ interests in HE and “the asymmetrical nature of interaction between patients and providers” are also suggested to have a close connection to reactance (Bigi 2016).
This connection has some implications for future research of the Health Vector program and other HE interventions with similar approaches. Such implications include (a) an exploration of how EBRs once transmitted to patients/caregivers influence engagement, adherence, and dialogue in doctor–patient encounters and (b) an examination of how involved interests, knowledge, and power gaps affect intervention.
Limitations of the study
Some actors of the Health Vector program did not respond to our invitation to participate in the interviews. Although we do not know their reasons, this indicates that we failed to account for some experiences that could have enriched our findings.
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated during this study are not publicly available. They are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to approval from the ethics committee that approved the study.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Baky V, Moran D, Warwick T, George A, Williams T, McWilliams E, Marine JE (2018) Obtaining a follow-up appointment before discharge protects against readmission for patients with acute coronary syndrome and heart failure: a quality improvement project. Int J Cardiol 257:12–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.10.036
Baur C, Martinez LM, Tchangalova N, Rubin D (2018) A review and report of community-based health literacy interventions. Community-based health literacy interventions: proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500372/ Accessed 15 July 2022
Bigi S (2016) Communication skills for patient engagement: argumentation competencies as means to prevent or limit reactance arousal, with an example from the Italian healthcare system. Front Psychol 7:1472. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01472
Bigi S (2021) Achieving shared understanding in chronic care interactions: the role of caregivers. Working With Older People 25:245–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/WWOP-06-2021-0028
Bridges J, Flatley M, Meyer J (2010) Older people’s and relatives’ experiences in acute care settings: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Nurs Stud 47:89–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.09.009
Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2017) Research methods in education. Routledge, London
Dogba MJ, Dossa AR, Breton E, Gandonou-Migan R (2019) Using information and communication technologies to involve patients and the public in health education in rural and remote areas: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 19:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3906-7
Drake C, Abadi MH, Batchelder HR, Richard BO, Balis LE, Rychener D (2022) National implementation of a group-based program promoting patient engagement and peer support in the Veterans Health Administration: a multi-methods evaluation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19:8333. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148333
Eichbaum QG, Adams LV, Evert J, Ho M-J, Semali IA, van Schalkwyk SC (2021) Decolonizing global health education: rethinking institutional partnerships and approaches. Acad Med 96:329–335. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003473
Epstein RM, Street Jr RL (2007) Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.c086898215 Accessed 07 July 2022
Favaretti C, Vandormael A, Hachaturyan V, Greuel M, Gates J, Bärnighausen T, Adam M (2022) Participant engagement and reactance to a short, animated video about added sugars: web-based randomized controlled trial. JMIR Public Health Surveill 8:e29669. https://doi.org/10.2196/29669
Ferreira P, Porto IS, Santo F, Figueiredo N, Enders BC, Cameron LE, Araújo S (2021) Health education for hospitalized patient in nursing care: a conceptual analysis. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem 75:e20200459. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2020-0459
Graffigna G, Barello S (2018) Spotlight on the Patient Health Engagement model (PHE model): a psychosocial theory to understand people's meaningful engagement in their own health care. Patient Preference Adherence 12:1261–1271. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S145646
Hayes C (2022) Methodology and method in case study research: framing research design in practice. In: White Watson S, Austin S, Bell J (eds) Conceptual analyses of curriculum inquiry methodologies, 1st edn. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 138–154. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8848-2.ch007
Hoffmann TC, Montori VM, Del Mar C (2014) The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. JAMA 312:1295–1296. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.10186
Jacob C, Bourke S, Heuss S (2022) From testers to cocreators-the value of and approaches to successful patient engagement in the development of eHealth solutions: qualitative expert interview study. JMIR Human Factors 9:e41481. https://doi.org/10.2196/41481
Jureidini J, McHenry LB (2022) The illusion of evidence based medicine. BMJ 376:o702. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o702
Khatib R, Schwalm J-D, Yusuf S, Haynes RB, McKee M, Khan M, Nieuwlaat R (2014) Patient and healthcare provider barriers to hypertension awareness, treatment and follow up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of qualitative and quantitative studies. PLoS One 9:e84238. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084238
Lorig KR, Holman HR (2003) Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 26:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2601_01
Mathew A, Clase CM (2022) Conflicts of interest and the trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol: CJASN 17:771–773. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.04640422
Mbah M, Bang H, Ndi H, Ndzo JA (2021) Community health education for health crisis management: the case of COVID-19 in Cameroon. Int Quarterly Commun Health Educ. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272684X211031106
Nutbeam D (2021) From health education to digital health literacy – building on the past to shape the future. Glob Health Promot 28:51–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579759211044079
Petersson C, Nygårdh A, Hedberg B (2022) To support self-management for people with long-term conditions - The effect on shared decision-making, empowerment and coping after participating in group-learning sessions. Nurs Open 9:2444–2453. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1261
Pueyo-Garrigues M, Whitehead D, Pardavila-Belio MI, Canga-Armayor A, Pueyo-Garrigues S, Canga-Armayor N (2019) Health education: a Rogerian concept analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 94:131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.03.005
Quintero GA, Vergel J, Arredondo M, Ariza MC, Gómez P, Pinzon-Barrios AM (2016) Integrated medical curriculum: advantages and disadvantages. J Med Educ Curric Dev 3:JMECD.S18920. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECD.S18920
Reynolds-Tylus T (2019) Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: a review of the literature. Front Commun 4:56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00056
Roaldsen KS, Walter C, Gäverth J, Dohrn IM (2022) Between commitment and avoidance - working age stroke survivors' perceptions of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study. BMC Neurol 22:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02704-3
Shim JL, Hwang SY (2017) Long-term effects of nurse-led individualized education on middle-aged patients with acute coronary synrome: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Nurs 16:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-017-0254-y
Silverstein LB, Auerbach CF, Levant RF (2006) Using qualitative research to strengthen clinical practice. Prof Psychol Res Pract 37:351–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.4.351
Skelton A (1998) The hidden curriculum of patient education for low back pain in general practice. Sociology of Health & Illness 20:96–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00082
Stake R (2011) Program evaluation particularly responsive evaluation. J MultiDisciplin Eval 7:180–201
Tan CS, Hassali MA, Neoh CF, Saleem F (2017) A qualitative exploration of hypertensive patients’ perception towards quality use of medication and hypertension management at the community level. Pharm Pract 15:1074–1074
van Heijster H, van Berkel J, Abma T, Boot CRL, de Vet E (2020) Responsive evaluation of stakeholder dialogue as a worksite health promotion intervention to contribute to the reduction of SEP related health inequalities: a study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 20:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-5020-2
Ye Q, Patel R, Khan U, Boren SA, Kim MS (2020) Evaluation of provider documentation patterns as a tool to deliver ongoing patient-centred diabetes education and support. Int J Clin Pract 74:e13451. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13451
Yu H, Côté P, Southerst D, Wong JJ, Varatharajan S, Shearer HM, Gross DP, van der Velde GM, Carroll LJ, Mior SA, Ameis A, Jacobs CL, Taylor-Vaisey AL (2016) Does structured patient education improve the recovery and clinical outcomes of patients with neck pain? A systematic review from the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) collaboration. Spine J 16:1524–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.03.039
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the logistical support given by the LaCardio Hospital to carry out the study.
Funding
This work was supported by the Fondo del Sistema General de Regalías Secretaría de Salud Distrital de Bogotá and the Universidad del Rosario, Colombia [grant number BPIN2016000100037].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JV, ALCM, and DL helped design the study. JV, AC, DL, and PC collected the study data. PC conducted the data analyses. JV, ALCM, and DL participated in interpretation of the results. JV prepared the original draft of the manuscript. All authors participated in the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This study was endorsed by the ethics committee of the district department of health (approval number 2016EE62783).
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained before recruitment of any participant into the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vergel, J., Casallas-Murillo, AL., Laverde-Robayo, DM. et al. Values and tensions of a health education program based on evidence-based medicine: a qualitative study. J Public Health (Berl.) 32, 787–794 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01839-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01839-y