Suppr超能文献

对临终关怀措施及其结果的系统评价。

A systematic review of measures of end-of-life care and its outcomes.

作者信息

Mularski Richard A, Dy Sydney M, Shugarman Lisa R, Wilkinson Anne M, Lynn Joanne, Shekelle Paul G, Morton Sally C, Sun Virginia C, Hughes Ronda G, Hilton Lara K, Maglione Margaret, Rhodes Shannon L, Rolon Cony, Lorenz Karl A

机构信息

Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Oregon Health & Science University, 3800 N. Interstate, WIN 1060, Portland, OR 97227, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2007 Oct;42(5):1848-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00721.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To identify psychometrically sound measures of outcomes in end-of-life care and to characterize their use in intervention studies.

DATA SOURCES

English language articles from 1990 to November 2005 describing measures with published psychometric data and intervention studies of end-of-life care.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of end-of-life care literature.

EXTRACTION METHODS

Two reviewers organized identified measures into 10 major domains. Eight reviewers extracted and characterized measures from intervention studies.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of 24,423 citations, we extracted 200 articles that described 261 measures, accepting 99 measures. In addition to 35 measures recommended in a prior systematic review, we identified an additional 64 measures of the end-of-life experience. The most robust measures were in the areas of symptoms, quality of life, and satisfaction; significant gaps existed in continuity of care, advance care planning, spirituality, and caregiver well-being. We also reviewed 84 intervention studies in which 135 patient-centered outcomes were assessed by 97 separate measures. Of these, 80 were used only once and only eight measures were used in more than two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, most measures have not undergone rigorous development and testing. Measure development in end-of-life care should focus on areas with identified gaps, and testing should be done to facilitate comparability across the care settings, populations, and clinical conditions. Intervention research should use robust measures that adhere to these standards.

摘要

目的

确定临终关怀结局的心理测量学上合理的测量方法,并描述其在干预研究中的应用。

数据来源

1990年至2005年11月的英文文章,描述具有已发表心理测量学数据的测量方法以及临终关怀的干预研究。

研究设计

对临终关怀文献进行系统评价。

提取方法

两名评价者将确定的测量方法分为10个主要领域。八名评价者从干预研究中提取并描述测量方法。

主要发现

在24423条引用文献中,我们提取了200篇描述261种测量方法的文章,认可了99种测量方法。除了先前系统评价中推荐的35种测量方法外,我们还确定了另外64种临终体验的测量方法。最可靠的测量方法涉及症状、生活质量和满意度领域;在连续性护理、预先护理计划、精神性和照顾者幸福感方面存在显著差距。我们还回顾了84项干预研究,其中通过97种不同的测量方法评估了135个以患者为中心的结局。其中,80种仅使用过一次,只有8种测量方法在两项以上的研究中使用。

结论

总体而言,大多数测量方法尚未经过严格的开发和测试。临终关怀中的测量方法开发应关注已确定差距的领域,并应进行测试以促进不同护理环境、人群和临床状况之间的可比性。干预研究应使用符合这些标准的可靠测量方法。

相似文献

1

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

3
Validation of the caregiving at life's end questionnaire.《临终关怀问卷》的验证
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2005 May-Jun;22(3):188-94. doi: 10.1177/104990910502200307.
8
End-of-life care and outcomes.临终关怀与结局
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2004 Dec(110):1-6.
9
A prospective study to compare three depression screening tools in patients who are terminally ill.
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2004 Sep-Oct;26(5):384-9. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.04.002.

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