• 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

影响患者决策。

Shaping patients' decisions.

机构信息

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.

Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.

出版信息

Chest. 2011 Feb;139(2):424-429. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0605.

DOI:10.1378/chest.10-0605
PMID:21285056
Abstract

Many physicians struggle to strike an acceptable balance between respecting patient autonomy and guiding patients' decisions toward what is in their best interests based on their expressed values and long-term goals. Over the past 40 years, the ethical principle of respect for autonomy has gained primacy in Western medicine, but judgments about the appropriate dose of influence on patient decisions have been clouded by misconceptions about patient autonomy. In this article, we consider three such misconceptions with the goal of helping physicians to optimally promote their patients' interests.

摘要

许多医生在尊重患者自主权和根据患者表达的价值观和长期目标引导患者做出符合其最佳利益的决策之间,努力寻求一个可接受的平衡。在过去的 40 年中,尊重自主权的伦理原则在西方医学中占据了首要地位,但对于影响患者决策的适当程度的判断却因对患者自主权的误解而变得模糊不清。本文考虑了其中三个误解,旨在帮助医生更好地促进患者的利益。

相似文献

1
Shaping patients' decisions.影响患者决策。
Chest. 2011 Feb;139(2):424-429. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0605.
2
Attitudes and practices of patients and physicians towards patient autonomy: a survey conducted prior to the enactment of the Patients' Rights Bill in Israel.患者与医生对患者自主权的态度及行为:以色列《患者权利法案》颁布前进行的一项调查。
Eubios J Asian Int Bioeth. 2000 Jul;10(4):119-25.
3
Shared decision making in the ED: ethical considerations.急诊科的共同决策:伦理考量
Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Aug;34(8):1668-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.05.058. Epub 2016 May 24.
4
The medical practice of patient autonomy and cancer treatment refusals: a patients' and physicians' perspective.患者自主权与癌症治疗拒绝的医疗实践:患者与医生的视角
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jun;58(11):2325-36. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.027.
5
Aligning ethics with medical decision-making: the quest for informed patient choice.使伦理与医疗决策保持一致:寻求患者的知情选择。
J Law Med Ethics. 2010 Spring;38(1):85-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00469.x.
6
Reluctant patients: autonomy and delegating medical decisions.不情愿的患者:自主权与医疗决策的委托
J Clin Ethics. 2002 Spring;13(1):78-84.
7
Respect for rational autonomy.尊重理性自主。
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2009 Dec;19(4):339-66. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0301.
8
Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family's role in medical decision-making.关系自主性还是不当压力?家庭在医疗决策中的作用。
Scand J Caring Sci. 2008 Mar;22(1):128-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00561.x.
9
Shared decision making and determining decision-making capacity.共同决策与决策能力的判定
Prim Care. 2005 Sep;32(3):645-58, vi. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2005.06.004.
10
Clinical Recommendations in Medical Practice: A Proposed Framework to Reduce Bias and Improve the Quality of Medical Decisions.医学实践中的临床建议:一个减少偏差并提高医疗决策质量的建议框架。
J Clin Ethics. 2016 Spring;27(1):21-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Balancing risks and rewards: How hematologists discuss uncertainty in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes.权衡风险与回报:血液学家如何讨论异基因造血细胞移植结果中的不确定性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Jun;123:108177. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108177. Epub 2024 Feb 1.
2
Communication Strategies of Transplant Hematologists in High-Risk Decision-Making Conversations.移植血液学家在高风险决策对话中的沟通策略。
JCO Oncol Pract. 2024 Apr;20(4):538-548. doi: 10.1200/OP.23.00574. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
3
Keeping the patient in the center: Common challenges in the practice of shared decision making.
以患者为中心:共同决策实践中的常见挑战。
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Dec;101(12):2195-2201. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.08.007. Epub 2018 Aug 6.
4
Using Default Options and Other Nudges to Improve Critical Care.使用默认选项及其他助推方法改善重症监护
Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):460-464. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002898.
5
Persuasive Interventions for Controversial Cancer Screening Recommendations: Testing a Novel Approach to Help Patients Make Evidence-Based Decisions.针对有争议的癌症筛查建议的劝导性干预措施:测试一种帮助患者做出基于证据的决策的新方法。
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Jan;15(1):48-55. doi: 10.1370/afm.1996. Epub 2017 Jan 6.
6
Patient education, nudge, and manipulation: defining the ethical conditions of the person-centered model of care.患者教育、助推与操纵:界定以患者为中心的护理模式的伦理条件。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Apr 4;10:459-68. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S99627. eCollection 2016.
7
Exploring end of life priorities in Saudi males: usefulness of Q-methodology.探索沙特男性临终时的优先事项:Q方法的效用
BMC Palliat Care. 2015 Nov 26;14:66. doi: 10.1186/s12904-015-0064-5.
8
Critical care physicians' approaches to negotiating with surrogate decision makers: a qualitative study.重症监护医师与代理人决策人协商的方法:一项定性研究。
Crit Care Med. 2012 Apr;40(4):1080-7. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823c8d21.