School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Sep;84(3):379-85. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.07.022. Epub 2011 Aug 9.
To test the effect of three questions (what are my options? what are the benefits and harms? and how likely are these?), on information provided by physicians about treatment options.
We used a cross-over trial using two unannounced standardized patients (SPs) simulating a presentation of mild-moderate depression. One SP was assigned the intervention role (asking the questions), the other the control role. An intervention and control SP visited each physician, order allocated randomly. The study was conducted in family practices in Sydney, Australia, during 2008-09. Data were obtained from consultation audio-recordings. Information about treatment options and patient involvement were analyzed using the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool and the OPTION tool.
Thirty-six SP visits were completed (18 intervention, 18 control). Scores were higher in intervention consultations than controls: ACEPP scores 21.4 vs. 16.6, p<0.001, difference 4.7 (95% CI 2.3-7.0) and OPTION scores 36 vs. 25, p=0.001, difference 11.5 (95% CI 5.1-17.8), indicating greater information provision and behavior supporting patient involvement.
Asking these three questions improved information given by family physicians and increased physician facilitation of patient involvement. Practice implications. These questions can drive evidence-based practice, strengthen patient-physician communication, and improve safety and quality.
检验三个问题(我的选择有哪些?各有何利弊?可能性有多大?)对医生提供治疗方案信息的影响。
采用交叉试验,使用两名未事先告知的标准化患者(SP)模拟轻度至中度抑郁症的就诊情况。其中一名 SP 扮演干预角色(提问),另一名扮演对照角色。干预 SP 和对照 SP 分别随机访问每位医生。该研究于 2008-09 年在澳大利亚悉尼的家庭诊所进行。通过咨询录音获取数据。使用评估证据和患者偏好交流工具(ACEPP)和 OPTION 工具分析治疗方案和患者参与相关信息。
完成了 36 次 SP 就诊(干预组 18 次,对照组 18 次)。干预组的评分高于对照组:ACEPP 评分 21.4 分 vs. 16.6 分,p<0.001,差异 4.7(95% CI 2.3-7.0);OPTION 评分 36 分 vs. 25 分,p=0.001,差异 11.5(95% CI 5.1-17.8),表明提供了更多信息,并且更支持患者参与。
提出这三个问题可改善家庭医生提供的信息,并增强医生促进患者参与的行为。实践意义:这些问题可以推动循证实践,加强医患沟通,并提高安全性和质量。