• 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

我的亲身经历比你的概率更重要:个性化风险评估在关于参与他莫昔芬和雷洛昔芬(STAR)研究决策中的作用。

My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities: The Role of Individualized Risk Estimates for Decision Making about Participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).

作者信息

Holmberg Christine, Waters Erika A, Whitehouse Katie, Daly Mary, McCaskill-Stevens Worta

机构信息

Berlin School of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany (CH, KW)

Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA (EAW)

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov;35(8):1010-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15594382. Epub 2015 Jul 16.

DOI:10.1177/0272989X15594382
PMID:26183166
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4592416/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Decision-making experts emphasize that understanding and using probabilistic information are important for making informed decisions about medical treatments involving complex risk-benefit tradeoffs. Yet empirical research demonstrates that individuals may not use probabilities when making decisions.

OBJECTIVES

To explore decision making and the use of probabilities for decision making from the perspective of women who were risk-eligible to enroll in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).

METHODS

We conducted narrative interviews with 20 women who agreed to participate in STAR and 20 women who declined. The project was based on a narrative approach. Analysis included the development of summaries of each narrative, and thematic analysis with developing a coding scheme inductively to code all transcripts to identify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Interviewees explained and embedded their STAR decisions within experiences encountered throughout their lives. Such lived experiences included but were not limited to breast cancer family history, a personal history of breast biopsies, and experiences or assumptions about taking tamoxifen or medicines more generally.

CONCLUSIONS

Women's explanations of their decisions about participating in a breast cancer chemoprevention trial were more complex than decision strategies that rely solely on a quantitative risk-benefit analysis of probabilities derived from populations In addition to precise risk information, clinicians and risk communicators should recognize the importance and legitimacy of lived experience in individual decision making.

摘要

背景

决策专家强调,理解和运用概率信息对于在涉及复杂风险效益权衡的医疗治疗中做出明智决策至关重要。然而,实证研究表明,个体在做决策时可能不会使用概率。

目的

从有资格参与他莫昔芬与雷洛昔芬研究(STAR)的女性的角度,探讨决策制定以及决策中概率的运用。

方法

我们对20名同意参与STAR的女性和20名拒绝参与的女性进行了叙述性访谈。该项目基于叙述方法。分析包括编写每个叙述的摘要,以及进行主题分析,通过归纳制定编码方案对所有访谈记录进行编码,以识别新出现的主题。

结果

受访者将她们参与STAR的决策置于其一生所经历的各种事情中进行解释和阐述。这些生活经历包括但不限于乳腺癌家族史、个人乳房活检史,以及服用他莫昔芬或一般药物的经历或假设。

结论

女性对参与乳腺癌化学预防试验的决策解释,比单纯依赖对群体概率进行定量风险效益分析的决策策略更为复杂。除了精确的风险信息外,临床医生和风险沟通者应认识到生活经历在个体决策中的重要性和合理性。

相似文献

1
My Lived Experiences Are More Important Than Your Probabilities: The Role of Individualized Risk Estimates for Decision Making about Participation in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR).我的亲身经历比你的概率更重要:个性化风险评估在关于参与他莫昔芬和雷洛昔芬(STAR)研究决策中的作用。
Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov;35(8):1010-22. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15594382. Epub 2015 Jul 16.
2
American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition.美国临床肿瘤学会对降低乳腺癌风险的药物干预措施进行的技术评估,包括他莫昔芬、雷洛昔芬和芳香化酶抑制。
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Aug 1;20(15):3328-43. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.06.029.
3
Gaining control over breast cancer risk: Transforming vulnerability, uncertainty, and the future through clinical trial participation - a qualitative study.掌控乳腺癌风险:通过参与临床试验改变易感性、不确定性及未来——一项定性研究
Sociol Health Illn. 2015 Nov;37(8):1373-87. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12307. Epub 2015 Aug 3.
4
Risk versus Benefit of Chemoprevention among Raloxifene and Tamoxifen Users with a Family History of Breast Cancer.雷洛昔芬和他莫昔芬使用者的家族乳腺癌史的化学预防的风险与获益。
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2019 Nov;12(11):801-808. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0021. Epub 2019 Aug 20.
5
Women's decision making about whether or not to use breast cancer chemoprevention.女性关于是否采用乳腺癌化学预防的决策。
Women Health. 2005;41(2):81-95. doi: 10.1300/J013v41n02_06.
6
Breast cancer prevention trials.乳腺癌预防试验。
Curr Oncol Rep. 2000 Nov;2(6):558-65. doi: 10.1007/s11912-000-0110-0.
7
Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older.对于 50 岁或以上女性使用雷洛昔芬或他莫昔芬进行乳腺癌化学预防的获益/风险评估。
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 10;29(17):2327-33. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0258. Epub 2011 May 2.
8
What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?女性在决定乳腺癌化学预防时关注什么?
Patient. 2016 Apr;9(2):149-59. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0134-z.
9
Decision-making about tamoxifen in women at high risk for breast cancer: clinical and psychological factors.乳腺癌高危女性使用他莫昔芬的决策:临床和心理因素
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Dec 15;22(24):4951-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.192. Epub 2004 Dec 14.
10
Women's views on chemoprevention of breast cancer: qualitative study.女性对乳腺癌化学预防的看法:定性研究
Can Fam Physician. 2006 May;52(5):624-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Perceptions of chemoprevention among individuals at high risk of oral cancer: qualitative study within the UK-based SAVER trial.口腔癌高危个体对化学预防的认知:基于英国SAVER试验的定性研究
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 17;15(6):e101326. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101326.
2
Information needs persist after genetic counseling and testing for BRCA1/2 and Lynch Syndrome.遗传咨询和 BRCA1/2 和 Lynch 综合征检测后仍存在信息需求。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2024 Nov;208(1):19-27. doi: 10.1007/s10549-024-07377-9. Epub 2024 Jul 24.
3
Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study.谈数字:女性和提供者如何在风险咨询期间和之后使用风险评分 - NRG 肿瘤学/ NSABP DMP-1 研究的定性调查。
BMJ Open. 2023 Nov 19;13(11):e073138. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073138.
4
The ticking time-bomb. Health literacy in the context of genetic risk prediction in familial breast-ovarian cancer; A qualitative study.定时炸弹。家族性乳腺癌-卵巢癌基因风险预测背景下的健康素养;一项定性研究。
Qual Res Med Healthc. 2021 Oct 5;5(2):9647. doi: 10.4081/qrmh.2021.9647.
5
The role of polygenic risk scores in breast cancer risk perception and decision-making.多基因风险评分在乳腺癌风险认知和决策中的作用。
J Community Genet. 2023 Oct;14(5):489-501. doi: 10.1007/s12687-023-00655-x. Epub 2023 Jun 13.
6
Parents' priorities and preferences for treatment of children with ADHD: Qualitative inquiry in the MADDY study.家长对 ADHD 患儿治疗的优先事项和偏好:MADDY 研究中的定性探究。
Child Care Health Dev. 2022 Sep;48(5):852-861. doi: 10.1111/cch.12995. Epub 2022 Mar 25.
7
Individual differences in risk perception and misperception of COVID-19 in the context of political ideology.在政治意识形态背景下,个体对新冠病毒风险认知与误判的差异。
Appl Cogn Psychol. 2022 Jan-Feb;36(1):19-31. doi: 10.1002/acp.3894. Epub 2021 Nov 21.
8
Characteristics Associated with Participation in ENGAGED 2 - A Web-based Breast Cancer Risk Communication and Decision Support Trial.与参与 ENGAGED 2 相关的特征 - 一项基于网络的乳腺癌风险沟通和决策支持试验。
Perm J. 2020 Dec;24:1-4. doi: 10.7812/TPP/19.205.
9
Understanding participation in European cohort studies of preterm children: the views of parents, healthcare professionals and researchers.理解参与欧洲早产儿队列研究的情况:父母、医疗保健专业人员和研究人员的观点。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Jan 12;21(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01206-5.
10
"No thanks, I don't want to see snakes again": a qualitative study of pain management versus preservation of cognition in palliative care patients.“谢谢,我不想再看到蛇了”:一项关于姑息治疗患者疼痛管理与认知保护的定性研究。
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Nov 29;19(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00683-1.

本文引用的文献

1
The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer.个体化风险信息的价值:一项对前列腺癌患者认知的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 13;3(9):e003226. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226.
2
HIV screening: helping clinicians make sense of test results to patients.HIV筛查:帮助临床医生向患者解释检测结果。
BMJ. 2013 Aug 21;347:f5151. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5151.
3
The Drug Facts Box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information.药品说明书:改进处方药信息的沟通。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):14069-74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1214646110. Epub 2013 Aug 13.
4
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.关于进行筛查测试的明智决策的个性化风险沟通。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;2013(2):CD001865. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub3.
5
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene trial: advancing the science of recruitment and breast cancer risk assessment in minority communities.国家外科辅助乳腺与肠道项目(NSABP)他莫昔芬与雷洛昔芬试验:推进少数民族社区的招募和乳腺癌风险评估科学。
Clin Trials. 2013 Apr;10(2):280-91. doi: 10.1177/1740774512470315. Epub 2013 Jan 18.
6
The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication.他们需要的是合适的工具,而不是我们拥有的工具:一种用于患者风险沟通的适当精度水平的分类法。
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):37S-49S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712458541. Epub 2012 Sep 6.
7
The role of patients' explanatory models and daily-lived experience in hypertension self-management.患者的解释模型和日常生活体验在高血压自我管理中的作用。
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Dec;27(12):1626-34. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2141-2. Epub 2012 Jul 21.
8
Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010.2010 年他莫昔芬和雷洛昔芬用于乳腺癌化学预防。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jul;134(2):875-80. doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2089-2. Epub 2012 May 24.
9
Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States.医生了解癌症筛查统计数据吗?对美国初级保健医生的全国性调查。
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):340-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00005.
10
Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older.对于 50 岁或以上女性使用雷洛昔芬或他莫昔芬进行乳腺癌化学预防的获益/风险评估。
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 10;29(17):2327-33. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.0258. Epub 2011 May 2.