循证风险沟通:系统评价。

Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review.

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161(4):270-80. doi: 10.7326/M14-0295.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Effective communication of risks and benefits to patients is critical for shared decision making.

PURPOSE

To review the comparative effectiveness of methods of communicating probabilistic information to patients that maximize their cognitive and behavioral outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (1966 to March 2014) and CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 to December 2011) using several keywords and structured terms.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective or cross-sectional studies that recruited patients or healthy volunteers and compared any method of communicating probabilistic information with another method.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eighty-four articles, representing 91 unique studies, evaluated various methods of numerical and visual risk display across several risk scenarios and with diverse outcome measures. Studies showed that visual aids (icon arrays and bar graphs) improved patients' understanding and satisfaction. Presentations including absolute risk reductions were better than those including relative risk reductions for maximizing accuracy and seemed less likely than presentations with relative risk reductions to influence decisions to accept therapy. The presentation of numbers needed to treat reduced understanding. Comparative effects of presentations of frequencies (such as 1 in 5) versus event rates (percentages, such as 20%) were inconclusive.

LIMITATION

Most studies were small and highly variable in terms of setting, context, and methods of administering interventions.

CONCLUSION

Visual aids and absolute risk formats can improve patients' understanding of probabilistic information, whereas numbers needed to treat can lessen their understanding. Due to study heterogeneity, the superiority of any single method for conveying probabilistic information is not established, but there are several good options to help clinicians communicate with patients.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

摘要

背景

向患者有效传达风险和获益对于共同决策至关重要。

目的

综述最大化患者认知和行为结果的概率信息沟通方法的比较效果。

资料来源

PubMed(1966 年至 2014 年 3 月)和 CINAHL、EMBASE、以及 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(1966 年至 2011 年 12 月),使用了多个关键词和结构化术语。

研究选择

前瞻性或横断面研究,招募患者或健康志愿者,并比较任何概率信息沟通方法与另一种方法。

资料提取

两名独立的评审员提取了研究特征并评估了偏倚风险。

资料综合

84 篇文章,代表 91 项独特研究,评估了多种数值和视觉风险展示方法在不同风险情景下的效果,以及使用不同的结局指标。研究表明,视觉辅助工具(图标数组和条形图)提高了患者的理解和满意度。包含绝对风险降低的呈现优于包含相对风险降低的呈现,更有助于提高准确性,且似乎比包含相对风险降低的呈现更不可能影响接受治疗的决策。呈现所需治疗的数量会降低理解。呈现频率(如 1/5)与呈现事件率(如 20%)的效果比较尚无定论。

局限性

大多数研究规模较小,在设置、背景和干预措施实施方法方面差异较大。

结论

视觉辅助工具和绝对风险格式可以提高患者对概率信息的理解,而需要治疗的数量会降低其理解。由于研究的异质性,没有一种单一的方法在传达概率信息方面具有优势,但有几种不错的选择可以帮助临床医生与患者沟通。

主要资金来源

无。

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