ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Among Canadian adults with chronic disease: 1) to identify groups that differ in self-management task frequency and self-efficacy; 2) to compare group characteristics and preferences for self-management support. METHODS: Using data from an online survey, cluster analysis was used to identify groups that differed in self-management task frequency and self-efficacy. Multivariable regression was used to explore relationships with patient characteristics and preferences. RESULTS: Cluster analysis (n = 247) revealed three groups:Vulnerable Self-Managers (n = 55), with the highest task frequency and lowest self-efficacy; Confident Self-Managers (n = 73), with the lowest task frequency and highest self-efficacy; and Moderate Needs Self-Managers (n = 119), with intermediate task frequency and self-efficacy. Vulnerable Self-Managers, when compared with the Confident group, were more often: on illness-related employment disability or unemployed; less well educated; diagnosed with emotional problems or hypertension, and had greater multimorbidity. They participated less often in self-management programs, and differed in support preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the characteristics of vulnerable self-managers can help in targeting those in greater need for self-management support that matches their preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Different approaches are needed to support self-management in the vulnerable population.
Subject(s)
Chronic Disease/therapy , Health Education , Self-Management , Social Support , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Canada , Chronic Disease/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Self Care , Self Efficacy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vulnerable Populations , Young AdultABSTRACT
Healthcare providers and managers typically design programs based on what they believe patients need and want. Yet patients have knowledge and insight into how the system can be changed to better meet their needs, improve outcomes and reduce costs. We describe challenges in creating a culture of patient partnerships and the leadership actions and organizational context required now and in the future to support engagement-capable environments at the organizational and policy levels in Canada. Case examples illustrate the need for leaders to set clear expectations, develop the infrastructure to support patient partnerships and provide education to staff, physicians and patient partners.
