信息与参与。
Information and involvement.
作者信息
Thornton H
出版信息
Health Expect. 2001 Mar;4(1):71-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00129.x.
Abstract
This article discusses the beliefs that provision of good quality information is the key to (a) successful and satisfying involvement of patients in their own decision-making and (b) involvement of lay people in the research process, in debate and other involvement in wider health issues. Education of children, health professionals, the public and the media is advocated, enabling critical appraisal skills and good quality health information to lead to improved involvement of citizens in health-care decisions of all kinds, both individual and societal. Examples of individual, group and specific group involvement through research projects, debates about screening, Citizens' Juries, etc. are used to illustrate benefits to patients and to health provision in general.
摘要
本文探讨了以下观点
提供高质量信息是（a）患者成功且满意地参与自身决策的关键，以及（b）非专业人士参与研究过程、参与辩论并参与更广泛健康问题讨论的关键。文章提倡对儿童、卫生专业人员、公众和媒体进行教育，使批判性评估技能和高质量健康信息能够促使公民更好地参与各类医疗保健决策，包括个人决策和社会决策。文中通过研究项目、关于筛查的辩论、公民陪审团等方式展示了个人、群体及特定群体参与的实例，以说明总体上对患者和医疗服务的益处。
相似文献
1
Information and involvement.信息与参与。
Health Expect. 2001 Mar;4(1):71-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00129.x.
2
Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome.规划研究重点中的公民陪审团：过程、参与度与结果
Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):272-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00502.x.
3
[Citizens' participation in health: education and shared decision-making. SESPAS Report 2012].[公民参与健康：教育与共同决策。西班牙公共卫生与社会医学研究所2012年报告]
Gac Sanit. 2012 Mar;26 Suppl 1:158-61. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.10.005. Epub 2012 Jan 23.
4
Investigating the Extent to Which Patients Should Control Access to Patient Records for Research: A Deliberative Process Using Citizens' Juries.调查患者在多大程度上应控制用于研究的患者记录的访问权限：使用公民陪审团的审议过程
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Mar 28;20(3):e112. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7763.
5
How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain.协商式方法如何让女性参与乳腺钼靶筛查决策：西班牙安达卢西亚的一项公民陪审团可行性研究
BMJ Open. 2018 May 5;8(5):e019852. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019852.
6
'Should a mammographic screening programme carry the warning: screening can damage your health!'?乳腺钼靶筛查项目是否应该附上这样的警示：“筛查可能损害您的健康！”
Br J Cancer. 1999 Feb;79(5-6):691-2. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690111.
7
Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?确定优先事项：公民陪审团能发挥作用吗？
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1591-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1591.
8
Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care.当决策涉及稀缺资源时，患者参与是否可行？一项关于初级医疗中决策制定的定性研究。
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jul;59(1):93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.10.007.
9
The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review.公民陪审团在卫生政策决策中的应用：系统评价。
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
10
Deciding on cystic fibrosis carrier screening: three citizens' juries and an online survey.决定囊性纤维化携带者筛查：三个公民陪审团和一项在线调查。
Eur J Public Health. 2018 Oct 1;28(5):973-977. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cky032.
引用本文的文献
1
Involvement of children and young people in the conduct of health research: A rapid umbrella review.儿童和青少年参与健康研究的情况：快速伞式综述。
Health Expect. 2024 Jun;27(3):e14081. doi: 10.1111/hex.14081.
2
Obtaining consumer perspectives using a citizens' jury: does the current country of origin labelling in Australia allow for informed food choices?通过公民陪审团获取消费者观点：澳大利亚目前的原产国标签是否有助于做出明智的食品选择？
BMC Public Health. 2016 Dec 9;16(1):1241. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3900-5.
3
A centralised public information resource for randomised trials: a scoping study to explore desirability and feasibility.一项针对随机试验的集中式公共信息资源：一项探索其可取性和可行性的范围界定研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 May 24;5:39. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-39.
4
Reporting dates is necessary to establish historical perspective--and validity of references.报告日期对于确立历史视角以及参考文献的有效性而言是必要的。
Health Expect. 2004 Sep;7(3):268. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00284.x.
本文引用的文献
1
Screening mammography re-evaluated.乳腺钼靶筛查的重新评估。
Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):747; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)00031-3.
2
Today's patient: passive or involved?今日的患者：被动还是主动参与？
Lancet. 1999 Dec;354 Suppl:SIV48. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)90391-4.
3
Are randomized trials of hormone replacement therapy in symptomatic women with breast cancer feasible?针对有症状的乳腺癌女性进行激素替代疗法的随机试验是否可行？
Fertil Steril. 2000 Feb;73(2):292-9. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00510-5.
4
Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?用乳房X线摄影术筛查乳腺癌是否合理？
Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):129-34. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)06065-1.
5
Patient information materials in oncology: are they needed and do they work?肿瘤学中的患者信息材料：它们是必需的吗？它们有作用吗？
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 1999;11(4):225-31. doi: 10.1053/clon.1999.9054.
6
'Should a mammographic screening programme carry the warning: screening can damage your health!'?乳腺钼靶筛查项目是否应该附上这样的警示：“筛查可能损害您的健康！”
Br J Cancer. 1999 Feb;79(5-6):691-2. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690111.
7
Decision analysis and the implementation of research findings.决策分析与研究结果的实施
BMJ. 1998 Aug 8;317(7155):405-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7155.405.
8
Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients' views.苏格兰西部癌症患者的信息需求：患者观点的横断面调查
BMJ. 1996 Sep 21;313(7059):724-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7059.724.
9
Breast cancer trials: a patient's viewpoint.乳腺癌试验：患者视角
Lancet. 1992 Jan 4;339(8784):44-5. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90157-x.
Zotero 插件