Suppr超能文献

系统评价初级保健干预措施,以提高慢性病行为风险因素的健康素养。

A systematic review of interventions in primary care to improve health literacy for chronic disease behavioral risk factors.

机构信息

Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Jun 1;13:49. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-49.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions used in primary care to improve health literacy for change in smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity and weight (SNAPW).

METHODS

A systematic review of intervention studies that included outcomes for health literacy and SNAPW behavioral risk behaviors implemented in primary care settings.We searched the Cochrane Library, Johanna Briggs Institute, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Science, Scopus, APAIS, Australasian Medical Index, Google Scholar, Community of Science and four targeted journals (Patient Education and Counseling, Health Education and Behaviour, American Journal of Preventive Medicine and Preventive Medicine).Study inclusion criteria: Adults over 18 years; undertaken in a primary care setting within an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country; interventions with at least one measure of health literacy and promoting positive change in smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity and/or weight; measure at least one outcome associated with health literacy and report a SNAPW outcome; and experimental and quasi-experimental studies, cohort, observational and controlled and non-controlled before and after studies.Papers were assessed and screened by two researchers (JT, AW) and uncertain or excluded studies were reviewed by a third researcher (MH). Data were extracted from the included studies by two researchers (JT, AW). Effectiveness studies were quality assessed. A typology of interventions was thematically derived from the studies by grouping the SNAPW interventions into six broad categories: individual motivational interviewing and counseling; group education; multiple interventions (combination of interventions); written materials; telephone coaching or counseling; and computer or web based interventions. Interventions were classified by intensity of contact with the subjects (High ≥ 8 points of contact/hours; Moderate >3 and <8; Low ≤ 3 points of contact hours) and setting (primary health, community or other).Studies were analyzed by intervention category and whether significant positive changes in SNAPW and health literacy outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

52 studies were included. Many different intervention types and settings were associated with change in health literacy (73% of all studies) and change in SNAPW (75% of studies). More low intensity interventions reported significant positive outcomes for SNAPW (43% of studies) compared with high intensity interventions (33% of studies). More interventions in primary health care than the community were effective in supporting smoking cessation whereas the reverse was true for diet and physical activity interventions.

CONCLUSION

Group and individual interventions of varying intensity in primary health care and community settings are useful in supporting sustained change in health literacy for change in behavioral risk factors. Certain aspects of risk behavior may be better handled in clinical settings while others more effectively in the community. Our findings have implications for the design of programs.

摘要

背景

评估初级保健中用于提高健康素养以改变吸烟、营养、酒精、身体活动和体重(SNAPW)的干预措施的有效性。

方法

对在初级保健环境中实施的针对健康素养和 SNAPW 行为风险行为的干预措施进行系统评价。我们检索了 Cochrane 图书馆、Johnna Briggs 研究所、Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Psychinfo、Web of Science、Scopus、APAIS、澳大拉西亚医学索引、Google Scholar、科学界和四个目标期刊(患者教育与咨询、健康教育与行为、美国预防医学杂志和预防医学)。研究纳入标准:18 岁以上成年人;在经济合作与发展组织(OECD)国家的初级保健环境中进行;干预措施至少有一项健康素养措施,并促进吸烟、营养、酒精、身体活动和/或体重的积极变化;至少有一项与健康素养相关的测量,并报告 SNAPW 结果;实验和准实验研究、队列研究、观察性研究和对照及非对照前后研究。由两名研究人员(JT、AW)评估和筛选论文,对不确定或排除的研究由第三名研究人员(MH)进行审查。由两名研究人员(JT、AW)从纳入的研究中提取数据。对有效性研究进行质量评估。通过将 SNAPW 干预措施分为六类来对干预措施进行主题分类:个体动机访谈和咨询;小组教育;多种干预措施(干预措施的组合);书面材料;电话辅导或咨询;以及基于计算机或网络的干预措施。根据与对象的接触强度(高≥8 点接触/小时;中>3 且<8;低≤3 点接触小时)和设置(初级保健、社区或其他)对干预措施进行分类。按干预类别和 SNAPW 和健康素养结果是否有显著的积极变化进行分析。

结果

共纳入 52 项研究。许多不同的干预类型和设置与健康素养的变化(所有研究的 73%)和 SNAPW 的变化(所有研究的 75%)相关。与高强度干预相比,更多低强度干预报告了 SNAPW 的显著积极结果(所有研究的 43%)(所有研究的 33%)。在初级保健中心而非社区中进行的干预措施更有利于支持戒烟,而在饮食和身体活动干预方面则相反。

结论

在初级保健和社区环境中,不同强度的小组和个人干预措施对于支持健康素养的持续变化以改变行为风险因素是有用的。某些风险行为方面可能在临床环境中处理得更好,而其他方面在社区中处理得更好。我们的发现对方案设计具有启示意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/928d/3444864/469dd6a90595/1471-2296-13-49-1.jpg

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