Suppr超能文献

用药告知同意:一项随机对照试验。

Informed consent when prescribing medication: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Laryngoscope. 2014 Jun;124(6):1296-300. doi: 10.1002/lary.24517. Epub 2014 Jan 30.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine patient recall of specific risks associated with medication prescription and whether or not handouts are an effective tool to augment the informed consent process.

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

Informed consent for prednisone prescriptions was studied by comparing the effect of a verbal discussion (describing 10 specific adverse drug reactions) in conjunction with a handout going over same, to a verbal discussion alone. Blinded assessments occurred by telephone interview 2 to 4 weeks following the intervention. Outcomes assessed were the number of risks of prednisone that patients could list and the number of risks they recalled having discussed with their physician. Other demographic details were also collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants were randomly allocated to each group. Without prompting, the median number of risks spontaneously recalled by the handout group was not significantly different than the control group, and both groups had very low recall (two vs. one, P = .24). When provided a list of potential side effects, it was observed that the handout group recalled a higher median number of risks having been discussed with their physician compared to patients in the control group (eight vs. five, P = .003). The groups' demographics were otherwise identical.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in general did not remember discussing adverse prednisone risks with their physician even a short time after the discussion took place. Although the patient handout resulted in improved recall of risks following the prescription of prednisone, its importance in the informed medication consent process remains an open question.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b.

摘要

目的/假设:确定患者对与药物处方相关的特定风险的记忆,以及是否分发手册是增强知情同意过程的有效工具。

研究设计

双盲、随机、对照试验。

方法

通过比较口头讨论(描述 10 种特定的药物不良反应)与同时分发手册的效果,以及仅进行口头讨论,来研究泼尼松处方的知情同意。在干预后 2 至 4 周通过电话访谈进行盲法评估。评估的结果是患者能够列出的泼尼松风险数量以及他们回忆与医生讨论过的风险数量。还收集了其他人口统计学细节。

结果

25 名参与者被随机分配到每组。在没有提示的情况下,手册组自发回忆的风险中位数与对照组没有显著差异,而且两组的回忆率都非常低(两组分别为 2 项和 1 项,P=0.24)。当提供潜在副作用的清单时,观察到手册组回忆与医生讨论过的风险中位数高于对照组(8 项与 5 项,P=0.003)。两组的人口统计学特征否则完全相同。

结论

患者通常不记得在讨论后很短的时间内与医生讨论过泼尼松的不良反应风险。尽管患者手册在手册开出泼尼松后能提高对风险的回忆,但它在知情药物同意过程中的重要性仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。

证据水平

1b。

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