• 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

不同层次的临床证据:探索共享决策中的沟通挑战。引言。

Differing levels of clinical evidence: exploring communication challenges in shared decision making. Introduction.

机构信息

Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.

出版信息

Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):3S-13S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712468491. Epub 2012 Dec 6.

DOI:10.1177/1077558712468491
PMID:23223330
Abstract

The near ubiquitous access to information is transforming the roles and relationships among clinical professionals, patients, and their care givers in nearly all aspects of healthcare. Informed patients engage their physicians in conversations about their conditions, options and the tradeoffs among diagnostic and therapeutic benefits and harms. The processes of care today increasingly and explicitly integrate exploration of patient values and preferences as patients and clinicians jointly engage in reaching decisions about care. The informed patient of today who can understand and use scientific information can participate as an equal partner with her clinician. Others with beliefs or educational, cultural, or literacy backgrounds that pose challenges to comprehending and applying evidence may face disenfranchisement. These barriers are significant enough, even in the face of certainty of evidence, that clinicians and investigators have given much thought to how best to engage all patients in decision making. However, barriers remain, as most decision making must occur in settings where uncertainty, if not considerable uncertainty, accompanies any statement of what we know. In September 2011, health care and health communication experts came together in Rockville, Maryland under the auspices of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science Annual Meeting to explore the challenges of differing levels of evidence in promoting shared decisions and to propose strategies for going forward in addressing these challenges. Eight scholarly papers emerged, and with this introductory article, comprise this special issue of Medical Care Research and Review.

摘要

无处不在的信息获取正在改变临床专业人员、患者及其护理人员在医疗保健几乎所有方面的角色和关系。知情的患者会与医生就自己的病情、治疗方案以及诊断和治疗的利弊权衡进行沟通。如今,护理流程越来越明确地将患者价值观和偏好的探索纳入其中,患者和临床医生共同参与决策。今天的知情患者能够理解和使用科学信息,因此可以作为其临床医生的平等伙伴参与其中。而那些信仰、教育、文化或识字背景可能对理解和应用证据构成挑战的人可能会面临被剥夺权利的困境。即使在有确凿证据的情况下,这些障碍仍然存在,这促使临床医生和研究人员认真思考如何让所有患者都能更好地参与决策制定。然而,障碍依然存在,因为在大多数情况下,决策必须在不确定性存在的情况下做出,如果不是相当大的不确定性,那么我们对所了解的情况的任何陈述都将伴随不确定性。2011 年 9 月,医疗保健和健康传播专家在马里兰州罗克维尔聚集一堂,在医疗保健研究与质量局(AHRQ)约翰·M·艾森伯格临床决策和传播科学中心年度会议的主持下,探讨了不同证据水平在促进共同决策方面所面临的挑战,并提出了应对这些挑战的策略。八篇学术论文应运而生,本文作为引言,构成了本期《医疗保健研究与评论》的特刊。

相似文献

1
Differing levels of clinical evidence: exploring communication challenges in shared decision making. Introduction.不同层次的临床证据:探索共享决策中的沟通挑战。引言。
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):3S-13S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712468491. Epub 2012 Dec 6.
2
A demonstration of shared decision making in primary care highlights barriers to adoption and potential remedies.初级保健中共享决策的演示突出了采用的障碍和潜在的补救措施。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):268-75. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1084.
3
[The analysis of physicians' work: announcing the end of attempts at in vitro fertilization].[医生工作分析:宣告体外受精尝试的终结]
Encephale. 2003 Jul-Aug;29(4 Pt 1):293-305.
4
Risk communication and shared decision making in the care of patients with osteoporosis.骨质疏松症患者护理中的风险沟通和共同决策。
J Clin Densitom. 2010 Oct-Dec;13(4):335-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2010.06.005. Epub 2010 Jul 21.
5
What is shared in shared decision making? Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear.共享决策中共享的是什么?当证据不明确时的复杂决策。
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):94S-112S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712459216. Epub 2012 Oct 2.
6
Arriba-lib: association of an evidence-based electronic library of decision aids with communication and decision-making in patients and primary care physicians.Arriba-lib:一种基于证据的决策辅助电子知识库与患者和初级保健医生的沟通和决策的关联。
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Mar;10(1):68-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00255.x.
7
[Shared decision making: an approach to strengthening patient participation in rehabilitation].[共同决策:增强患者参与康复的一种方法]
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2003 Jun;42(3):129-35. doi: 10.1055/s-2003-40097.
8
The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty.沟通在协作决策中的重要性:促进共享思维和不确定性管理。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):579-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01549.x. Epub 2010 Sep 12.
9
Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low.支持临床证据不足时的共同决策。
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):113S-128S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712458456. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
10
Risk management frameworks for human health and environmental risks.人类健康与环境风险的风险管理框架。
J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):569-720. doi: 10.1080/10937400390208608.

引用本文的文献

1
[Not Available].[不可用]。
CMAJ. 2024 Mar 3;196(8):E274-E275. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.231583-f.
2
Establishing trust through clear communication and shared decision-making.通过清晰的沟通和共同决策来建立信任。
CMAJ. 2023 Dec 17;195(49):E1725-E1726. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.231583.
3
Implementation of social needs screening in primary care: a qualitative study using the health equity implementation framework.实施初级保健中的社会需求筛查:使用卫生公平实施框架的定性研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Sep 17;21(1):975. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06991-3.
4
Ensuring machine learning for healthcare works for all.确保适用于医疗保健领域的机器学习能为所有人服务。
BMJ Health Care Inform. 2020 Nov;27(3). doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100237.
5
Estimation of Risk of Recurrence and Toxicity Among Oncologists and Patients With Resected Breast Cancer: A Quantitative Study.乳腺癌切除术后肿瘤学家与患者复发风险及毒性的评估:一项定量研究。
Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 27;11:540083. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540083. eCollection 2020.
6
The proof of the pudding: in praise of a culture of real-world validation for medical artificial intelligence.实践出真知:赞医学人工智能的现实世界验证文化
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Apr;7(8):161. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.04.07.
7
Perceptions of Equipoise, Risk-Benefit Ratios, and "Otherwise Healthy Volunteers" in the Context of Early-Phase HIV Cure Research in the United States: A Qualitative Inquiry.美国早期HIV治愈研究背景下对 equipoise(均衡性)、风险效益比及“其他健康志愿者”的认知:一项定性研究
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Feb;13(1):3-17. doi: 10.1177/1556264617734061. Epub 2017 Oct 6.
8
Building on evidence to improve patient care.基于证据改善患者护理。
Pediatr Nephrol. 2017 Dec;32(12):2193-2202. doi: 10.1007/s00467-016-3554-7. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
9
English language proficiency, health literacy, and trust in physician are associated with shared decision making in rheumatoid arthritis.英语水平、健康素养以及对医生的信任与类风湿关节炎的共同决策相关。
J Rheumatol. 2014 Jul;41(7):1290-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.131350.
10
Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology.倾听艰难对话:一项观察性、多中心的医学肿瘤学实时对话研究。
BMC Cancer. 2013 Oct 4;13:455. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-455.