• 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

筛查项目中个体风险沟通的效果:Cochrane系统评价

Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

作者信息

Edwards Adrian, Unigwe Silvana, Elwyn Glyn, Hood Kerenza

机构信息

Department of Primary Care, University of Wales Swansea Clinical School, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP.

出版信息

BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):703-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.703.

DOI:10.1136/bmj.327.7417.703
PMID:14512475
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC200799/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of different types of individualised risk communication for patients who are deciding whether to participate in screening.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Specialist register of the Cochrane consumers and communication review group, scientific databases, and a manual follow up of references.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

Studies were randomised controlled trials addressing decisions by patients whether or not to undergo screening and incorporating an intervention with an element of "individualised" risk communication-based on the individual's own risk factors for a condition (such as age or family history).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The principal outcome was uptake of screening tests; further cognitive and affective measures were also assessed to gauge informed decision making.

RESULTS

13 studies were included, 10 of which addressed mammography programmes. Individualised risk communication was associated with an increased uptake of screening tests (odds ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 2.03). Few cognitive or affective outcomes were reported consistently, so it was not possible to conclude whether this increase in the uptake of tests was related to informed decision making by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualised risk estimates may be effective for purposes of population health, but their effects on increasing uptake of screening programmes may not be interpretable as evidence of informed decision making by patients. Greater attention is required to ways of developing interventions for screening programmes that can achieve this.

摘要

目的

评估不同类型的个体化风险沟通对正在决定是否参加筛查的患者的影响。

设计

系统评价。

数据来源

Cochrane消费者与沟通评价小组的专业注册库、科学数据库以及参考文献的手工追踪。

研究选择

研究为随机对照试验,涉及患者是否接受筛查的决策,并纳入基于个体自身疾病风险因素(如年龄或家族史)的具有“个体化”风险沟通元素的干预措施。

结局指标

主要结局是筛查检查的接受情况;还评估了进一步的认知和情感指标以衡量知情决策。

结果

纳入13项研究,其中10项涉及乳腺X线摄影项目。个体化风险沟通与筛查检查接受率的增加相关(比值比1.5,95%置信区间1.11至2.03)。很少有认知或情感结局被一致报道,因此无法得出检查接受率的增加是否与患者的知情决策有关。

结论

个体化风险评估对于人群健康目的可能是有效的,但其对增加筛查项目接受率的影响可能不能被解释为患者知情决策的证据。需要更加关注为筛查项目制定能够实现这一目标的干预措施的方法。

相似文献

1
Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.筛查项目中个体风险沟通的效果:Cochrane系统评价
BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):703-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.703.
2
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about entering screening programs.个性化风险沟通,以便就参与筛查项目做出明智决策。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(1):CD001865. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.
3
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.关于进行筛查测试的明智决策的个性化风险沟通。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18(4):CD001865. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub2.
4
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.针对女性的干预措施,以鼓励她们接受宫颈癌筛查。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3.
5
Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people.干预健康从业者与受影响者之间关于临终关怀的人际沟通。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 8;7(7):CD013116. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013116.pub2.
6
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
7
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
8
Exercise interventions and patient beliefs for people with hip, knee or hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed methods review.髋、膝或髋膝骨关节炎患者的运动干预和患者信念:一项混合方法综述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 17;4(4):CD010842. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010842.pub2.
9
Community screening for visual impairment in older people.老年人视力障碍的社区筛查。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;2(2):CD001054. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001054.pub3.
10
Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.心理健康问题患者的共同决策干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 11;11(11):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Gender Effects on the Impact of Colorectal Cancer Risk Calculators on Screening Intentions: Experimental Study.性别对结直肠癌风险计算器对筛查意愿影响的作用:实验研究
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Jun 12;7:e37553. doi: 10.2196/37553.
2
Breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a decision aid on mammography screening uptake: study protocol.乳腺癌:一项评估决策辅助工具对乳房X光检查筛查接受率影响的随机对照试验:研究方案。
Front Oncol. 2023 Apr 24;13:1128467. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1128467. eCollection 2023.
3
Exploring education preferences of Australian women regarding long-term health after hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a qualitative perspective.探讨澳大利亚女性在妊娠高血压疾病后长期健康方面的教育偏好:一种定性视角。
BMC Womens Health. 2021 Nov 1;21(1):384. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01524-w.
4
A Validated Risk Prediction Model for Breast Cancer in US Black Women.美国黑人女性乳腺癌风险预测模型的验证。
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 1;39(34):3866-3877. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01236. Epub 2021 Oct 8.
5
Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis.基于互联网的癌症风险评估工具对风险沟通最佳实践的遵从性:内容分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 25;23(1):e23318.
6
Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers.参与健康素养有限的女性进行乳房 X 光检查决策:患者和初级保健提供者的观点。
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Apr;36(4):938-945. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06213-2. Epub 2020 Sep 15.
7
Two Clinical Prediction Tools to Improve Tuberculosis Contact Investigation.两种临床预测工具可提高结核病接触者调查效果。
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 5;71(8):e338-e350. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz1221.
8
Exploring health literacy and preferences for risk communication among medical oncology patients.探索医学肿瘤学患者的健康素养和风险沟通偏好。
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 18;13(9):e0203988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203988. eCollection 2018.
9
The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.智慧研究:打破乳腺癌筛查辩论的僵局
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017 Sep 13;3:34. doi: 10.1038/s41523-017-0035-5. eCollection 2017.
10
The perceived acceptability of the DEPPA patient assessment tool: A questionnaire survey of Denplan Excel patients.DEPPA患者评估工具的可接受度认知:一项针对登普蓝Excel患者的问卷调查
Br Dent J. 2017 May 26;222(10):767-770. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.453.

本文引用的文献

1
Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented.癌症预防筛查的结果:宫颈异常累积发病率分析以及预防病例和死亡的建模
BMJ. 2003 Apr 26;326(7395):901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7395.901.
2
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about entering screening programs.个性化风险沟通,以便就参与筛查项目做出明智决策。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(1):CD001865. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.
3
Are guidelines ethical? Some considerations for general practice.指南是否合乎伦理?全科医疗的一些考量。
Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Aug;52(481):663-8.
4
Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?心血管风险筛查:是公共卫生的当务之急还是个人知情选择的问题?
BMJ. 2002 Jul 13;325(7355):78-80. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7355.78.
5
The short-term impact of tailored mammography decision-making interventions.个性化乳腺钼靶检查决策干预措施的短期影响。
Patient Educ Couns. 2001 Jun;43(3):269-85. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00172-5.
6
A measure of informed choice.知情选择的一种衡量方式。
Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):99-108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x.
7
Information about screening - is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?关于筛查的信息——是为了实现高参与率还是确保知情选择?
Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):92-8. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00138.x.
8
Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes.呈现风险信息——“框架”及其他操控手段对患者结果影响的综述
J Health Commun. 2001 Jan-Mar;6(1):61-82. doi: 10.1080/10810730150501413.
9
The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review.筛查接受率的决定因素及提高接受率的干预措施:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(14):i-vii, 1-133.
10
Judging the 'weight of evidence' in systematic reviews: introducing rigour into the qualitative overview stage by assessing Signal and Noise.评估系统评价中的“证据权重”:通过评估信号与噪声在定性概述阶段引入严谨性。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2000 May;6(2):177-84. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00212.x.