• 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

两种简化版系统评价格式对临床医生的迭代评估:一项焦点小组研究。

An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.

机构信息

Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct;21(e2):e341-6. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002660. Epub 2014 May 1.

DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002660
PMID:24786378
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4173187/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a series of focus groups with primary care physicians to determine the optimal format of a shortened, focused systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prototypes for two formats of a shortened systematic review were developed and presented to participants during focus group sessions. Focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians who were in full- or part-time practice. An iterative process was used so that the information learned from the first set of focus groups (Round 1) influenced the material presented to the second set of focus groups (Round 2). The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.

RESULTS

Each of the two rounds of testing included three focus groups. A total of 32 physicians participated (Round 1:16 participants; Round 2:16 participants). Analysis of the transcripts from Round 1 identified three themes including ease of use, clarity, and implementation. Changes were made to the prototypes based on the results so that the revised prototypes could be presented and discussed in the second round of focus groups. After analysis of transcripts from Round 2, four themes were identified, including ease of use, clarity, brevity, and implementation. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians provided input on the refinement of two prototypes of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. Their feedback guided changes to the format, presentation, and layout of these prototypes in order to increase usability and uptake for end-users.

摘要

目的

通过一系列基层医疗医师焦点小组讨论,确定缩短式重点系统综述的最佳格式。

材料与方法

制定两种缩短式系统综述格式的原型,并在焦点小组会议期间向参与者展示。焦点小组由全职或兼职执业的基层医疗医师组成。采用迭代过程,以便从第一组焦点小组(第 1 轮)获得的信息影响到第二组焦点小组(第 2 轮)所展示的内容。对焦点小组讨论进行录音、逐字记录和分析。

结果

两轮测试每组均包括三个焦点小组。共有 32 名医师参与(第 1 轮:16 名参与者;第 2 轮:16 名参与者)。第 1 轮记录的转录本分析确定了三个主题,包括易用性、清晰度和实施。根据结果对原型进行了修改,以便在第二轮焦点小组中展示和讨论修订后的原型。对第 2 轮记录的转录本进行分析后,确定了四个主题,包括易用性、清晰度、简洁性和实施。根据结果对原型进行了修订。

结论

基层医疗医师对两种缩短式临床医师用系统综述原型的完善提出了意见。他们的反馈指导了格式、演示和布局的更改,以提高最终用户的可用性和接受度。

相似文献

1
An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.两种简化版系统评价格式对临床医生的迭代评估:一项焦点小组研究。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct;21(e2):e341-6. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002660. Epub 2014 May 1.
2
A usability study of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians.两种缩短版系统评价格式对临床医生的可用性研究。
BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 23;4(12):e005919. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005919.
3
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.为临床医生开发两种简化的系统评价格式。
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 14;8:68. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-68.
4
Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.提高系统评价效果的采用率:哪种格式最适合医疗保健管理者和政策制定者?一项混合方法研究。
Implement Sci. 2018 Jun 22;13(1):84. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0779-9.
5
Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience.临床医生支持循证实践和共享决策的决策框:用户体验。
Implement Sci. 2012 Aug 3;7:72. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-72.
6
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
7
The Usability of a Smartphone-Based Fall Risk Assessment App for Adult Wheelchair Users: Observational Study.一款基于智能手机的成人轮椅使用者跌倒风险评估应用程序的可用性:观察性研究。
JMIR Form Res. 2022 Sep 16;6(9):e32453. doi: 10.2196/32453.
8
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
9
10

引用本文的文献

1
The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.证据综合摘要格式对临床指南制定小组的有效性和可接受性:一项混合方法系统评价。
Implement Sci. 2022 Oct 27;17(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s13012-022-01243-2.
2
Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.评估信息如何在为政策制定者和其他利益相关者准备的快速综述中呈现:一项横断面研究。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 29;18(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00624-7.
3
Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study.评估已发表期刊和非期刊快速评论报告的格式和内容:一项比较研究。
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0238025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238025. eCollection 2020.
4
Visual Evidence: Increasing Usability of Systematic Reviews in Health Systems Guidelines Development.视觉证据:提高系统评价在卫生系统指南制定中的可用性。
Appl Clin Inform. 2019 Aug;10(4):743-750. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1697595. Epub 2019 Oct 2.
5
Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes.用于解读临床试验结果的交互式视觉展示:基于病例 vignettes 的形成性评估
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 25;20(6):e10507. doi: 10.2196/10507.
6
Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review.政策制定者和医疗保健管理者采用系统评价的障碍与促进因素:一项范围综述
Implement Sci. 2016 Jan 12;11:4. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1.
7
Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.在临床决策中运用系统评价:一项平行试点随机对照试验
Implement Sci. 2015 Aug 15;10:118. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0303-4.
8
A usability study of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians.两种缩短版系统评价格式对临床医生的可用性研究。
BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 23;4(12):e005919. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005919.

本文引用的文献

1
Opioid abuse in the United States and Department of Health and Human Services actions to address opioid-drug-related overdoses and deaths.美国的阿片类药物滥用情况以及美国卫生与公众服务部为应对与阿片类药物相关的过量用药和死亡所采取的行动。
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2015 Jun;29(2):133-9. doi: 10.3109/15360288.2015.1037530.
2
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.为临床医生开发两种简化的系统评价格式。
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 14;8:68. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-68.
3
Comparison of alternative evidence summary and presentation formats in clinical guideline development: a mixed-method study.比较替代证据总结和呈现格式在临床指南制定中的应用:一项混合方法研究。
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55067. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055067. Epub 2013 Jan 25.
4
The quality, breadth, and timeliness of content updating vary substantially for 10 online medical texts: an analytic survey.10 个在线医学文本的内容更新质量、广度和及时性差异很大:一项分析调查。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Sep 10.
5
Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice.将医疗保健干预措施从试验转化为实际应用。
BMJ. 2010 Aug 13;341:c3852. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3852.
6
Quality and quantity indices in science: use of visualization tools.科学中的质量和数量指标:可视化工具的使用。
EMBO Rep. 2009 Aug;10(8):800-3. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.162.
7
The role of the national general medical journal: surveys of which journals UK clinicians read to inform their clinical practice.全国综合性医学期刊的作用:关于英国临床医生为指导临床实践而阅读哪些期刊的调查。
Med Clin (Barc). 2008 Dec;131 Suppl 5:30-5. doi: 10.1016/S0025-7753(08)76404-2.
8
Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey.医生对随机对照试验和荟萃分析的知识、态度及专业应用:一项横断面调查。
Eur J Public Health. 2009 Jun;19(3):297-302. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn134. Epub 2009 Jan 7.
9
The qualitative content analysis process.定性内容分析过程。
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
10
Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor.系统评价:是时候兼顾临床和政策相关性以及方法学严谨性了。
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Aug 21;147(4):273-4. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00180. Epub 2007 Jul 16.