• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.一项针对新诊断高血压患者的决策分析以及信息视频加传单的析因随机对照试验。
Br J Gen Pract. 2003 Jun;53(491):446-53.
2
A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women's choice between pregnancy termination methods.一项关于决策辅助传单以促进女性在终止妊娠方法之间做出选择的随机对照试验。
BJOG. 2006 Jun;113(6):688-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00930.x.
3
Use of a decision aid for prenatal testing of fetal abnormalities to improve women's informed decision making: a cluster randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN22532458].使用胎儿异常产前检测决策辅助工具以改善女性的知情决策:一项整群随机对照试验[国际标准随机对照试验编号:ISRCTN22532458]
BJOG. 2008 Feb;115(3):339-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01576.x.
4
Decision analysis for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients: a qualitative investigation.新诊断高血压患者的决策分析:一项定性研究。
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 May;53(2):197-203. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00148-4.
5
Randomized trial of a video-based patient decision aid for bariatric surgery.随机对照试验:基于视频的减重手术患者决策辅助工具。
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Aug;19(8):1669-75. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.65. Epub 2011 Apr 7.
6
Three-year follow-up of a factorial randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.一项针对新诊断高血压患者的两种决策辅助工具的析因随机对照试验的三年随访
Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Jul;55(516):551-3.
7
Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after cesarean.剖宫产术后知情分娩决策辅助工具的随机对照试验:为分娩做出选择
Birth. 2005 Dec;32(4):252-61. doi: 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00383.x.
8
Does 'peer coaching' increase GP capacity to promote informed decision making about PSA screening? A cluster randomised trial.“同伴辅导”能否提高全科医生促进关于前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)筛查的明智决策的能力?一项整群随机试验。
Fam Pract. 2005 Jun;22(3):253-65. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmi028. Epub 2005 Apr 11.
9
Patient decision aid on natural health products for menopausal symptoms: randomized controlled trial.针对更年期症状的天然健康产品患者决策辅助工具:随机对照试验。
Menopause Int. 2008 Sep;14(3):105-10. doi: 10.1258/mi.2008.008014.
10
Development and preliminary testing of a patient decision aid to assist pharmaceutical care in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.一种用于辅助药学服务预防心血管疾病的患者决策辅助工具的开发与初步测试。
Pharmacotherapy. 2004 Jul;24(7):909-22. doi: 10.1592/phco.24.9.909.36104.

引用本文的文献

1
Racial and Ethnic Differences in Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Hypertension: Results From the RICH LIFE Project.高血压患者共同决策中的种族和民族差异:RICH LIFE项目的结果
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 May 6;14(9):e036664. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.036664. Epub 2025 Apr 23.
2
Multiethnic Perspectives of Shared Decision-Making in Hypertension: A Mixed-Methods Study.多民族视角下的高血压共同决策:一项混合方法研究。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2024 Jul 16;13(14):e032568. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.032568. Epub 2024 Jul 11.
3
Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.共享决策在心血管危险因素管理中的应用:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Mar 4;7(3):e243779. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3779.
4
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.决策辅助工具用于帮助面临医疗保健治疗或筛查决策的人。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.
5
Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.心血管疾病风险沟通与预防:一项荟萃分析。
Eur Heart J. 2024 Mar 27;45(12):998-1013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae002.
6
Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.澄清价值观:一项更新和扩展的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):801-820. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211037946.
7
Decision Analysis in SHared decision making for Thromboprophylaxis during Pregnancy (DASH-TOP): a sequential explanatory mixed methods pilot study protocol.在妊娠期间抗血栓形成(DASH-TOP)的共同决策中进行决策分析:一项序贯解释性混合方法试点研究方案。
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 22;11(3):e046021. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046021.
8
Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment in a Decision Aid to Nudge Patients Towards Value-Concordant Treatment Choices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Proof-of-Concept Study.在类风湿性关节炎决策辅助工具中运用离散选择实验推动患者做出符合价值观的治疗选择:一项概念验证研究
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020 May 18;14:829-838. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S221897. eCollection 2020.
9
Why evidence still matters to general practice: James Mackenzie Lecture 2019.为何证据对全科医疗仍至关重要:2019年詹姆斯·麦肯齐讲座
Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Mar 26;70(693):198-199. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X709241. Print 2020 Apr.
10
Lack of effects of evidence-based, individualised counselling on medication use in insured patients with mild hypertension in China: a randomised controlled trial.中国保险患者轻度高血压患者中,基于证据的个体化咨询对药物使用无影响:一项随机对照试验。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020 Jun;25(3):102-108. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111197. Epub 2019 Aug 31.

本文引用的文献

1
Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy.子宫切除术中女性预防性卵巢切除术决策临床指导方案的制定与初步评估
Qual Saf Health Care. 2002 Mar;11(1):32-8; discussion 38-9. doi: 10.1136/qhc.11.1.32.
2
The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems.患者的元偏好 在决策支持系统设计与评估中的作用
Health Expect. 2002 Mar;5(1):16-27. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00160.x.
3
Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis.心血管保护与血压降低:一项荟萃分析。
Lancet. 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1305-15. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06411-X.
4
Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools.患者参与医疗决策偏好的变异性:对决策支持工具使用的启示
Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i34-8. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100034...
5
Decision analysis in patient care.患者护理中的决策分析。
Lancet. 2001 Aug 18;358(9281):571-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05709-9.
6
Clinical decisions: from art to science and back again.临床决策:从艺术到科学,再回归艺术。
Lancet. 2001 Aug 18;358(9281):523-4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05743-9.
7
Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice.高血压治疗中的共同决策:患者偏好对治疗选择的影响。
Fam Pract. 2001 Jun;18(3):309-13. doi: 10.1093/fampra/18.3.309.
8
The potential use of decision analysis to support shared decision making in the face of uncertainty: the example of atrial fibrillation and warfarin anticoagulation.面对不确定性时决策分析在支持共同决策中的潜在应用:以心房颤动和华法林抗凝治疗为例。
Qual Health Care. 2000 Dec;9(4):238-44. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.4.238.
9
The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis.患者偏好对房颤治疗的影响:基于患者的决策分析观察性研究
BMJ. 2000 May 20;320(7246):1380-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1380.
10
Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.心房颤动患者预防卒中的抗凝治疗决策分析与指南
Lancet. 2000 Mar 18;355(9208):956-62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)90012-6.

一项针对新诊断高血压患者的决策分析以及信息视频加传单的析因随机对照试验。

A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.

作者信息

Montgomery Alan A, Fahey Tom, Peters Tim J

机构信息

Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, Bristol BS6 6JL.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2003 Jun;53(491):446-53.

PMID:12939889
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1314618/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of evidence regarding the value of tools designed to aid decision making in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension.

AIM

To evaluate two interventions for assisting newly diagnosed hypertensive patients in the decision whether to start drug therapy for reducing blood pressure.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Factorial randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Twenty-one general practices in south-west England, UK.

METHOD

Adults aged 32 to 80 years with newly diagnosed hypertension were randomised to receive either: (a) computerised utility assessment interview with individualized risk assessment and decision analysis; or (b) information video and leaflet about high blood pressure; or (c) both interventions; or (d) neither intervention. Outcome measures were decisional conflict, knowledge, state anxiety, intentions regarding starting treatment, and actual treatment decision.

RESULTS

Of 217 patients randomised, 212 (98%) were analysed at the primary follow-up (mean age = 59 years, 49% female). Decision analysis patients had lower decisional conflict than those who did not receive this intervention (27.6 versus 38.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] for adjusted difference = -13.0 to -5.8, P < 0.001), greater knowledge about hypertension (73% versus 67%, adjusted 95% CI = 2% to 9%, P = 0.003) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (34.8 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -5.6 to 0.1, P = 0.055). Video/leaflet patients had lower decisional conflict than corresponding controls (30.3 versus 36.8, adjusted 95% CI = -7.4 to -0.6, P = 0.021), greater knowledge (75% versus 65%, adjusted 95% CI = 6% to 13%, P < 0.001) and no evidence of increased state anxiety (35.7 versus 36.1, adjusted 95% CI = -3.9 to 1.7, P = 0.46). There were no differences between either of the interventions and their respective controls in the proportion of patients prescribed antihypertensive medication (67%).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrates that, among patients facing a real treatment decision, interventions to inform patients about hypertension and to clarify patients' values concerning outcomes of treatment are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge, while not resulting in any increases in state anxiety.

摘要

背景

缺乏关于旨在帮助新诊断高血压患者进行决策的工具价值的证据。

目的

评估两种干预措施,以协助新诊断的高血压患者决定是否开始药物治疗以降低血压。

研究设计

析因随机对照试验。

研究地点

英国英格兰西南部的21家全科诊所。

方法

年龄在32至80岁之间的新诊断高血压成人被随机分配接受以下任一干预措施:(a)计算机化效用评估访谈及个性化风险评估和决策分析;(b)关于高血压的信息视频和宣传册;(c)两种干预措施;或(d)不采取任何干预措施。结局指标包括决策冲突、知识、状态焦虑、开始治疗的意向以及实际治疗决策。

结果

在随机分组的217例患者中,212例(98%)在首次随访时进行了分析(平均年龄 = 59岁,49%为女性)。接受决策分析的患者的决策冲突低于未接受该干预措施的患者(27.6对38.9,调整后差异的95%置信区间[CI] = -13.0至-5.8,P < 0.001),对高血压的了解更多(73%对67%,调整后的95%CI = 2%至9%,P = 0.003),且无状态焦虑增加的证据(34.8对36.8,调整后的95%CI = -5.6至0.1,P = 0.055)。观看视频/阅读宣传册的患者的决策冲突低于相应对照组(30.3对36.8,调整后的95%CI = -7.4至-0.6,P = 0.021),知识更丰富(75%对65%,调整后的95%CI = 6%至13%,P < 0.001),且无状态焦虑增加的证据(35.7对36.1,调整后的95%CI = -3.9至1.7,P = 0.46)。在接受降压药物治疗的患者比例方面,两种干预措施及其各自的对照组之间均无差异(67%)。

结论

本试验表明,在面临实际治疗决策的患者中,告知患者有关高血压的信息并阐明患者对治疗结果的价值观的干预措施可有效降低决策冲突并增加患者知识,同时不会导致状态焦虑增加。