Suppr超能文献

在快速就诊胸痛诊所中让患者对检查结果放心的一项干预措施:一项试点随机对照试验。

An intervention to reassure patients about test results in rapid access chest pain clinic: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

作者信息

Hicks Kathryn, Cocks Kim, Corbacho Martin Belen, Elton Peter, MacNab Anita, Colecliffe Wendy, Furze Gill

机构信息

Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.

出版信息

BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014 Oct 4;14:138. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-14-138.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention.

METHODS

This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011).

摘要

背景

大多数被转诊至快速胸痛诊所的患者患有非心源性胸痛,对于那些被诊断为稳定型冠心病的患者,指南建议一线治疗通常是药物治疗而非血运重建。因此,许多患者对自己的诊断或治疗是否正确并不放心。先前的一项试验报告称,在患有非心源性胸痛的患者中,在检查前与健康心理学家就潜在检查结果的意义进行简短讨论,能让患者明显更安心。本试点研究的目的是测试研究程序,为未来的多中心试验提供样本量信息,并初步评估讨论干预措施的有效性。

方法

这是一项双臂试点随机对照试验,在门诊快速胸痛诊所对120名因新发非紧急胸痛接受检查的患者进行研究。符合条件的参与者被随机分为两组:一组在诊所检查前由护士进行关于检查结果的意义和影响的讨论,并加上一份涵盖相同信息的检查前小册子(讨论组);另一组仅接受检查前小册子(小册子组)。主要结局指标是招募率和未来多中心试验的可行性,使用5项患者报告量表评估第1个月和第6个月时两组患者的安心程度。

结果

在招募期间,有270人前往快速胸痛诊所,其中120/270名参与者(44%)被随机分组,每组60人。在第1个月(34.2对33.7)或第6个月(35.3对35.9)时,讨论组和小册子组的平均安心得分没有差异的证据。两组患者报告的胸痛情况和心脏药物使用情况也相似。

结论

在英国进行更大规模关于讨论干预措施的试验是没有必要的。患者报告的安心程度较高,接受护士讨论的患者和仅接受小册子的患者的安心程度相似。

试验注册

当前受控试验ISRCTN60618114(于2011年5月27日分配)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dd36/4197216/039c8bd50441/12872_2014_786_Fig1_HTML.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