British Columbia Women's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013 Aug;20(4):701-14. doi: 10.1177/2047487312449308. Epub 2012 May 22.
To assess the effects of patient education on mortality, morbidity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and healthcare costs in people with coronary heart disease (CHD).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data sources were Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ongoing trial registries until August 2010. We also checked study references. The study selection was based on design (randomized controlled trials with follow up of at least 6 months, published from 1990 onwards), population (adults with CHD), intervention (patient education stated to be the primary intervention), and comparators (usual care or no educational intervention).
Thirteen studies (68,556 people with CHD) were included. Educational interventions ranged from two visits to a 4-week residential stay with 11 months of reinforcement sessions. Compared to no educational intervention, there was weak evidence that education reduced all-cause mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13) and cardiac morbidity outcomes: myocardial infarction (pooled RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48), revascularization (pooled RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.71), and hospitalization (pooled RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07) at median 18-months follow up. There was evidence to suggest that education can improve HRQoL and decrease healthcare costs by reductions in downstream healthcare utilization.
Our review had insufficient power to exclude clinically important effects of education on mortality and morbidity. Nevertheless it supports the practice of CHD secondary prevention and rehabilitation programmes including education as an intervention. Further research is needed to determine the most effective and cost-effective format, duration, timing, and methods of education delivery.
评估患者教育对冠心病患者死亡率、发病率、健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)和医疗成本的影响。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
资料来源为 Cochrane 图书馆、Medline、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL 和正在进行的试验注册中心,直到 2010 年 8 月。我们还检查了研究参考文献。研究选择基于设计(有至少 6 个月随访的随机对照试验,发表于 1990 年以后)、人群(冠心病成人)、干预(患者教育被认为是主要干预)和对照(常规护理或无教育干预)。
共纳入 13 项研究(68556 例冠心病患者)。教育干预范围从两次就诊到为期 4 周的住院治疗,辅以 11 个月的强化课程。与无教育干预相比,教育可降低全因死亡率(合并相对风险(RR)0.79,95%置信区间(CI)0.55 至 1.13)和心脏发病率结局:心肌梗死(合并 RR 0.63,95%CI 0.26 至 1.48)、血运重建(合并 RR 0.58,95%CI 0.19 至 1.71)和住院治疗(合并 RR 0.83,95%CI 0.65 至 1.07),中位随访时间为 18 个月。有证据表明,通过减少下游医疗保健利用,教育可以提高 HRQoL 和降低医疗成本。
我们的综述没有足够的能力排除教育对死亡率和发病率的临床重要影响。尽管如此,它支持将冠心病二级预防和康复计划(包括教育干预)作为一种干预措施的实践。需要进一步研究以确定最有效和最具成本效益的教育提供模式、持续时间、时间安排和方法。