Suppr超能文献

方法学综述:测量和报告首选和实际死亡地点之间的一致性。

Methodological review: measured and reported congruence between preferred and actual place of death.

机构信息

Department of Geriatric Medicine, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

出版信息

Palliat Med. 2009 Sep;23(6):482-90. doi: 10.1177/0269216309106318. Epub 2009 Jun 3.

Abstract

Congruence between preferred and actual place of death is an important palliative care outcome reported in the literature. We examined methods of measuring and reporting congruence to highlight variations impairing cross-study comparisons. Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were systematically searched for clinical research studies examining patient preference and congruence as an outcome. Data were extracted into a matrix, including purpose, reported congruence, and method for eliciting preference. Studies were graded for quality. Using tables of preferred versus actual places of death, an overall congruence (total met preferences out of total preferences) and a kappa statistic of agreement were determined for each study. Twelve studies were identified. Percentage of congruence was reported using four different definitions. Ten studies provided a table or partial table of preferred versus actual deaths for each place. Three studies provided kappa statistics. No study achieved better than moderate agreement when analysed using kappa statistics. A study which elicited ideal preference reported the lowest agreement, while longitudinal studies reporting final preferred place of death yielded the highest agreement (moderate agreement). Two other studies of select populations also yielded moderate agreement. There is marked variation in methods of eliciting and reporting congruence, even among studies focused on congruence as an outcome. Cross-study comparison would be enhanced by the use of similar questions to elicit preference, tables of preferred versus actual places of death, and kappa statistics of agreement.

摘要

在文献中,首选和实际死亡地点的一致性是一个重要的姑息治疗结果。我们研究了衡量和报告一致性的方法,以突出影响跨研究比较的差异。系统地检索了 Medline、PsychInfo、CINAHL 和 Web of Science 中的临床研究,以检查将患者偏好和一致性作为结果的研究。将数据提取到一个矩阵中,包括目的、报告的一致性和征求偏好的方法。对研究进行了质量评分。使用首选与实际死亡地点的表格,为每项研究确定了总体一致性(总符合偏好的比例)和kappa 一致性统计量。确定了 12 项研究。使用四种不同的定义报告了一致性的百分比。有 10 项研究为每个地点提供了首选与实际死亡的表格或部分表格。有三项研究提供了kappa 统计量。使用kappa 统计量分析时,没有一项研究达到中度以上的一致性。在征求理想偏好的研究中,一致性最低,而报告最终首选死亡地点的纵向研究则产生了最高的一致性(中度一致)。另外两项针对特定人群的研究也产生了中度一致。即使是关注一致性作为结果的研究,在征求和报告一致性的方法上也存在明显的差异。通过使用类似的问题来征求偏好、首选与实际死亡地点的表格以及kappa 一致性统计量,可以提高跨研究比较的效果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验