Suppr超能文献

慢性病干预措施的沟通效果:哪种单一形式能够取代全面信息?

Communicating effectiveness of intervention for chronic diseases: what single format can replace comprehensive information?

作者信息

Stovring Henrik, Gyrd-Hansen Dorte, Kristiansen Ivar S, Nexoe Jorgen, Nielsen Jesper B

机构信息

Research Unit for General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008 Jun 19;8:25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-25.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about how GPs should convey information about treatment effectiveness to their patients in the context of cardiovascular disease. Hence we study the concordance of decisions based on one of four single information formats for treatment effectiveness with subsequent decisions based on all four formats combined with a pictorial representation.

METHODS

A randomized study comprising 1,169 subjects aged 40-59 in Odense, Denmark. Subjects were randomized to receive information in terms of absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), number needed to treat (NNT), or prolongation of life (POL) without heart attack, and were asked whether they would consent to treatment. Subsequently the same information was conveyed with all four formats jointly accompanied by a pictorial presentation of treatment effectiveness. Again, subjects should consider consent to treatment.

RESULTS

After being informed about all four formats, 52%-79% of the respondents consented to treatment, depending on level of effectiveness and initial information format. Overall, ARR gave highest concordance, 94% (95% confidence interval (91%; 97%)) between initial and final decision, but ARR was not statistically superior to the other formats.

CONCLUSION

Decisions based on ARR had the best concordance with decisions based on all four formats and pictorial representation, but the difference in concordance between the four formats was small, and it is unclear whether respondents fully understood the information they received.

摘要

背景

在心血管疾病的背景下,全科医生应如何向患者传达治疗效果信息尚不确定。因此,我们研究了基于四种单一治疗效果信息格式之一做出的决策与随后基于所有四种格式并结合图片表示做出的决策之间的一致性。

方法

一项针对丹麦欧登塞1169名年龄在40 - 59岁之间受试者的随机研究。受试者被随机分配接受关于绝对风险降低(ARR)、相对风险降低(RRR)、需治疗人数(NNT)或无心脏病发作情况下的生命延长(POL)方面的信息,并被问及是否会同意接受治疗。随后,以所有四种格式共同呈现相同信息,并伴有治疗效果的图片展示。同样,受试者应考虑是否同意接受治疗。

结果

在了解所有四种格式后,52% - 79%的受访者同意接受治疗,这取决于治疗效果水平和初始信息格式。总体而言,ARR的一致性最高,初始决策与最终决策之间的一致性为94%(95%置信区间(91%;97%)),但ARR在统计学上并不优于其他格式。

结论

基于ARR做出的决策与基于所有四种格式及图片表示做出的决策一致性最佳,但四种格式之间的一致性差异较小,且尚不清楚受访者是否完全理解了他们所收到的信息。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Communicating treatment effectiveness in the context of chronic disease processes.在慢性病过程的背景下交流治疗效果。
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2006 Dec;6(6):673-9. doi: 10.1586/14737167.6.6.673.
3
A meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats.不同形式呈现治疗益处效果的荟萃分析。
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):638-54. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07306783. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
6
Number-needed-to-treat (NNT)--needs treatment with care.需治疗人数(NNT)——需谨慎治疗。
Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006 Jul;99(1):12-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2006.pto_412.x.

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