IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v21y2012i11-12p1524-1533.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences between community professional and patient perceptions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment outcomes: a qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Mary Cooke
  • Sue Thackray

Abstract

Aims and objectives. This study aims to define, compare and order ‘assessed needs and defined outcomes’ of professional providers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease services with patients’‘prioritised needs and defined outcomes’ and relate these to service provision. Background. Long‐term morbidity and death rates from respiratory diseases in the UK are increasing. Few studies report patient views and perceptions of needs or priorities for respiratory conditions in primary care. None compare patient’s and health professional’s perceptions of patient needs, which may identify specific changes for service delivery. Design. A qualitative study using focus group discussion and nominal group technique to define, compare and order professional’s and patient’s groups’ statements to prioritise perceptions. Method. Specialist professionals and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were recruited to focus groups using systematic purposive sampling. Nominal group ordering of agreed statements occurred after the discussions followed by presentation of results to groups for validation. Results. Four key perceptions ordered and compared show both professionals and patients agreed that access to equitably provided services included more respiratory rehabilitation; other priorities indicate key differences between professional’s and patient’s perceptions of financial support, the communication of health education and the need for better provision of palliative care at end of life. Conclusions. The study offers new knowledge about what patients in all stages of the disease process consider important for services that will retain their independence. This qualitative study illuminates and compares professional’s and patient’s priorities for service delivery and their perceptions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease services. Relevance to clinical practice. Changing respiratory services to support patient’s perceived needs enhances their independence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary Cooke & Sue Thackray, 2012. "Differences between community professional and patient perceptions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment outcomes: a qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(11‐12), pages 1524-1533, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:11-12:p:1524-1533
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04094.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04094.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04094.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mary Cooke & Malcolm Campbell, 2014. "Comparing patient and professional views of expected treatment outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Delphi study identifies possibilities for change in service delivery in England, UK," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(13-14), pages 1990-2002, July.
    2. Mary Carolan & Jessica Holman & Michelle Ferrari, 2015. "Experiences of diabetes self‐management: a focus group study among Australians with type 2 diabetes," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(7-8), pages 1011-1023, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:11-12:p:1524-1533. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.