NAU publications by CHER
Faculty & staff publications
NAU faculty and staff have the opportunity to publish their findings and knowledge as authors. CHER has many researchers that have been cited multiple times in major publications for their great work. The Center for Health Equity Research has accumulated all faculty publications into one, easy to navigate database.
Please type in a key word or author LAST name to search
Boucher, Nathan A; Bull, Janet H; Cross, Sarah H; Kirby, Christine; Davis, Kelly J; Jr., Donald Taylor H Patient, caregiver and taxpayer knowledge of palliative care and views on a model of community-based palliative care Journal Article Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2018. @article{Boucher2018, title = {Patient, caregiver and taxpayer knowledge of palliative care and views on a model of community-based palliative care}, author = {Nathan A Boucher and Janet H Bull and Sarah H Cross and Christine Kirby and Kelly J Davis and Donald Taylor H Jr.}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392418304378}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-08-25}, journal = {Journal of Pain and Symptom Management}, abstract = {Context Palliative care (PC) model delivered by two large hospices and PC providers. Objectives To understand study participants' knowledge of PC and acceptability of a new community-based PC model. Methods Semistructured interview with patients and caregivers; focus groups with taxpayers. Descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach. Results Across 10 interviews and four focus groups (n = 4–10 per group), there was varying knowledge of PC. Gaps in interview and focus group participants' knowledge related to knowing the services available in PC, how PC is paid for, how to initiate PC, and how PC affects the patient's relationship with existing providers. Regarding the model, negative feedback from interview participants included not having PC explained adequately and PC providers seen as consultants and not as full-time providers. Focus group participants indicated that the model sounded promising but noted the likely difficulty in enacting it in our current health care system. Positive feedback from interview participants included the perception that clinicians spent more time and provided more support for patients and families and the developing ability of PC services to provide care more broadly than at the very end of life. Focus group participants had similar observations related to perceived attention to care and broader application of PC. Perceptions of time-constrained care delivery and suboptimal provider-patient communication persist for some patients getting PC services. Conclusion Education for patients, caregivers, and community members about the roles and benefits of PC will be needed to successfully expand community-based PC.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Context Palliative care (PC) model delivered by two large hospices and PC providers. Objectives To understand study participants' knowledge of PC and acceptability of a new community-based PC model. Methods Semistructured interview with patients and caregivers; focus groups with taxpayers. Descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach. Results Across 10 interviews and four focus groups (n = 4–10 per group), there was varying knowledge of PC. Gaps in interview and focus group participants' knowledge related to knowing the services available in PC, how PC is paid for, how to initiate PC, and how PC affects the patient's relationship with existing providers. Regarding the model, negative feedback from interview participants included not having PC explained adequately and PC providers seen as consultants and not as full-time providers. Focus group participants indicated that the model sounded promising but noted the likely difficulty in enacting it in our current health care system. Positive feedback from interview participants included the perception that clinicians spent more time and provided more support for patients and families and the developing ability of PC services to provide care more broadly than at the very end of life. Focus group participants had similar observations related to perceived attention to care and broader application of PC. Perceptions of time-constrained care delivery and suboptimal provider-patient communication persist for some patients getting PC services. Conclusion Education for patients, caregivers, and community members about the roles and benefits of PC will be needed to successfully expand community-based PC. |
2018 |
Boucher, Nathan A; Bull, Janet H; Cross, Sarah H; Kirby, Christine; Davis, Kelly J; Jr., Donald Taylor H Patient, caregiver and taxpayer knowledge of palliative care and views on a model of community-based palliative care Journal Article Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2018. @article{Boucher2018, title = {Patient, caregiver and taxpayer knowledge of palliative care and views on a model of community-based palliative care}, author = {Nathan A Boucher and Janet H Bull and Sarah H Cross and Christine Kirby and Kelly J Davis and Donald Taylor H Jr.}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392418304378}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-08-25}, journal = {Journal of Pain and Symptom Management}, abstract = {Context Palliative care (PC) model delivered by two large hospices and PC providers. Objectives To understand study participants' knowledge of PC and acceptability of a new community-based PC model. Methods Semistructured interview with patients and caregivers; focus groups with taxpayers. Descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach. Results Across 10 interviews and four focus groups (n = 4–10 per group), there was varying knowledge of PC. Gaps in interview and focus group participants' knowledge related to knowing the services available in PC, how PC is paid for, how to initiate PC, and how PC affects the patient's relationship with existing providers. Regarding the model, negative feedback from interview participants included not having PC explained adequately and PC providers seen as consultants and not as full-time providers. Focus group participants indicated that the model sounded promising but noted the likely difficulty in enacting it in our current health care system. Positive feedback from interview participants included the perception that clinicians spent more time and provided more support for patients and families and the developing ability of PC services to provide care more broadly than at the very end of life. Focus group participants had similar observations related to perceived attention to care and broader application of PC. Perceptions of time-constrained care delivery and suboptimal provider-patient communication persist for some patients getting PC services. Conclusion Education for patients, caregivers, and community members about the roles and benefits of PC will be needed to successfully expand community-based PC.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Context Palliative care (PC) model delivered by two large hospices and PC providers. Objectives To understand study participants' knowledge of PC and acceptability of a new community-based PC model. Methods Semistructured interview with patients and caregivers; focus groups with taxpayers. Descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach. Results Across 10 interviews and four focus groups (n = 4–10 per group), there was varying knowledge of PC. Gaps in interview and focus group participants' knowledge related to knowing the services available in PC, how PC is paid for, how to initiate PC, and how PC affects the patient's relationship with existing providers. Regarding the model, negative feedback from interview participants included not having PC explained adequately and PC providers seen as consultants and not as full-time providers. Focus group participants indicated that the model sounded promising but noted the likely difficulty in enacting it in our current health care system. Positive feedback from interview participants included the perception that clinicians spent more time and provided more support for patients and families and the developing ability of PC services to provide care more broadly than at the very end of life. Focus group participants had similar observations related to perceived attention to care and broader application of PC. Perceptions of time-constrained care delivery and suboptimal provider-patient communication persist for some patients getting PC services. Conclusion Education for patients, caregivers, and community members about the roles and benefits of PC will be needed to successfully expand community-based PC. |