Suppr超能文献

健康素养干预措施对医疗保健使用者知情同意过程的有效性:一项系统评价方案

The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol.

作者信息

Perrenoud Beatrice, Velonaki Venetia-Sofia, Bodenmann Patrick, Ramelet Anne-Sylvie

机构信息

1Institute of Higher Education and Research in health care, University of Lausanne, Switzerland2Bureau d'Echanges des Savoirs pour des praTiques exemplaires de soins (BEST): an Affiliate Center of The Joanna Briggs Institute3Vulnerable Population Unit, Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):82-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2304.

Abstract

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to establish the best available evidence of the effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process for health care users. The specific review question is:What is the effectiveness of health literacy interventions on health care users' informed consent to health procedures processes?

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a fundamental principal in the health care context which nowadays includes the patient's capacity to judge and to be involved in the decision making concerning their care that ensures that the care received reflects their goals, preferences and values. The importance of obtaining a valid consent before any medical procedure is well-established. In a US court case in 1914, it was stated that it is the right of any adult with the capability of making decisions concerning his own body, and that any surgical operation without the patient's consent could be considered as an assault. In another US court case, the court stated that it is a doctor's duty to make a reasonable disclosure to his patient of the nature, probable consequences and dangers of the proposed treatment to the patient. The application of the doctrine of informed consent as a legal procedure may slightly differ from country to country or from state to state, and may have different forms even within the same country. For example in the UK, consent can be written, verbal or non-verbal/implied, and a written consent form is not the actual consent itself but merely serves as evidence that consent has been given. If the elements of voluntariness, appropriate information and capacity have not been satisfied, a signed informed consent form will not make the consent valid. Nowadays it is widely accepted that prior to the application of any medical procedure, its benefits, risks and alternatives must have been explained to the patient, and the competent patient should have voluntarily and understandingly consented. Hence, the informed consent refers both to the health professional's obligation of information disclosure to the patient and to the quality of the patient's understanding and decision making. In other words, it does not refer to the single moment of the agreement, but to the whole complex process of gaining information, deciding and consenting. Several factors may restrict informed consent, including the patient's competence, provision of limited information, ineffective communication between patients and professionals, the hospital environment itself and privacy problems.According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people are increasingly urged to make choices for themselves or for their family members in regards to health care use. However, at the same time, inadequate or problematic health literacy skills have been reported in approximately half of the adult population in eight European countries. "Health literacy is linked to literacy and entails people's knowledge, motivation and competences to access, understand, appraise and apply health information in order to make judgments and take decisions in everyday life concerning health care, disease prevention and health promotion to maintain or improve quality of life during the life course". There are many instruments measuring either health literacy in general or some dimensions of health literacy (e.g. numeracy), health literacy related to specific issues (e.g. nutrition, diabetes) or health literacy of specific populations (e.g. adolescents). The diversity of existing instruments, which includes diversity in terms of scoring and ranges, makes the comparison of the results of different studies difficult. Index thresholds and ranges for different levels of health literacy for most tools were set based either on that of other well established health literacy instruments used in the same study, or on experts' assessments of the required health literacy scores. Adequate health literacy could be considered as the capacity of successfully completing most tasks required to function in the health care setting.Low or inadequate health literacy has been found to have several adverse effects on health and health care use: reduced ability to take medications properly and to interpret labels and health messages, poorer overall health status and higher risk of mortality in seniors, increased emergency department and hospital use, and decreased use of preventive interventions.Most studies examining the relationship between health literacy and informed consent conclude that patients with low health literacy are less likely to participate in decision making concerning their health care. According to a recent literature review, health care users' literacy, together with other factors, were found to be important determinants of a patient's capacity to provide fully informed consent. According to this review, 21 to 86% of the patients were able to recall the potential risks and complications of their medical procedure. This percentage may be even lower because most of the included studies referred to self-reported recall, which may be a flawed measure. According to the literature, much of the written material related to the informed consent is too difficult for health care users to understand. In addition, in their study, McCarthy et al. observed that during consultations, physicians spoke and used significantly more complex language than their patients, which may result in inappropriate communication for the patients, mainly for those with limited literacy. The situations described above may raise a number of critical legal and ethical problems. Health professionals, who shape the conditions of interactions with the patient, are responsible for adapting appropriate interventions, such as communication approaches that take into account patients' health literacy. These interventions could have a major contribution to the improvement of the informed consent process.Sheridan et al. conducted a systematic review on interventions designed to reduce the effects of limited health literacy in general. Some of the outcomes of the included studies were comprehension and behavioral intent, outcomes which could be strongly related to the informed consent process. Without making any distinction of the studies referring to the informed consent process, they conclude that several health literacy interventions, for example, adding video to narrative, could improve an individual's comprehension. Schenker et al. conducted a systematic review on the interventions to improve patient comprehension of medical and surgical procedures, including articles published until 2008. One of their conclusions was that, in most studies, while particular attention is needed for interventions provided to patients with limited literacy, the literacy of the patients was not addressed or assessed.Since then, many articles on health literacy and informed consent have been published. According to a recent review on best practices and new models of health literacy for informed consent, which includes papers published from 2004 to 2014, over half of the collected articles were published since 2010. This review, which is limited to literature within the US and its territories, and does not focus on the evaluation of the recommended practices in the literature, concludes that different tactics for simplifying written documents and clarifying verbal exchanges, and the use of multimedia formats and computerized exchanges might ameliorate constraints to health literate communications required for informed consent.Studies have evaluated the effectiveness of health literacy interventions which aim to improve the informed consent process. Improvement of the informed consent process may refer not only to the patients' comprehension but also, for example, to the recall of the information provided, to their intention to ask for clarifications, or to their satisfaction with the procedure. Interventions described and tested in the literature focus on the improvement of the print material, the process (e.g. the communication of the appropriate information) or both. Davis et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare two polio vaccine pamphlets written at a sixth grade level - an international standardized pamphlet and an easy-to-read pamphlet - for the comprehension and preference among parents. Although the parents in the intervention group (N=304) achieved significantly higher comprehension than the control group (N=306) (65% vs 60%, p<0.005), the authors concluded that simplifying written material increases appeal but not the comprehension to an adequate level without use of instructional graphics. Similarly, Lorenzen et al. found that a reader friendly informed consent document to surgical procedures was more commonly read by the health care users as compared to the original consent document; however, no difference was found in terms of the participants' capacity to describe the procedure in their own words. Kang et al. evaluated recall and comprehension of orthodontic informed consent among pairs of children and their parents (N=90) applying three different informed consent procedures. According to this study, a combination of improving the readability of consent materials and the informed consent process (audio and visual cues) led to better recall for the patients and better recall and comprehension for their parents compared to an improved readability form or the usual informed consent form. Smith et al. used a randomized controlled trial to compare a decision aid (booklet and DVD) specifically designed for adults with low literacy skills (N=357) with a standard information booklet (N=173) on screening for bowel cancer. They found that the proportion of participants making an informed choice was 22% higher in the intervention group than in the control group (34% vs 12%, P<0.001). Matsuyama et al. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

摘要

综述问题/目标:本系统评价的目的是确定关于健康素养干预措施对医疗保健使用者知情同意过程有效性的最佳现有证据。具体的综述问题是:健康素养干预措施对医疗保健使用者对医疗程序过程的知情同意有何效果?

背景

知情同意是医疗保健领域的一项基本原则,如今包括患者判断并参与有关其医疗护理决策的能力,以确保所接受的护理反映其目标、偏好和价值观。在任何医疗程序之前获得有效同意的重要性已得到充分确立。在1914年的一起美国法庭案件中,指出任何有能力对自己身体做出决策的成年人都有这样的权利,任何未经患者同意的外科手术都可被视为侵犯行为。在另一起美国法庭案件中,法庭指出医生有责任向患者合理披露拟议治疗的性质、可能的后果和风险。知情同意原则作为一种法律程序的应用在不同国家或州可能略有不同,甚至在同一国家内也可能有不同形式。例如在英国,同意可以是书面的、口头的或非语言/默示的,书面同意书本身并非实际的同意,而仅仅是已给予同意的证据。如果自愿性、适当信息和能力等要素未得到满足,签署的知情同意书也不会使同意有效。如今,人们普遍认为在应用任何医疗程序之前,必须向患者解释其益处、风险和替代方案,并且有行为能力的患者应自愿且理解地给予同意。因此,知情同意既指健康专业人员向患者披露信息的义务,也指患者理解和决策的质量。换句话说,它并非指同意的单一时刻,而是指获取信息、决策和同意的整个复杂过程。有几个因素可能会限制知情同意,包括患者的行为能力、信息提供有限、患者与专业人员之间的无效沟通、医院环境本身以及隐私问题。根据世界卫生组织(WHO)的说法,人们越来越被敦促为自己或家人在医疗保健使用方面做出选择。然而,与此同时,据报道在八个欧洲国家约一半的成年人口中存在健康素养技能不足或有问题的情况。“健康素养与读写能力相关,涉及人们获取、理解、评估和应用健康信息的知识、动机和能力,以便在日常生活中就医疗保健、疾病预防和健康促进做出判断和决策,以在生命过程中维持或改善生活质量”。有许多工具可用于测量一般健康素养或健康素养的某些维度(如数能力)、与特定问题相关的健康素养(如营养、糖尿病)或特定人群的健康素养(如青少年)。现有工具的多样性,包括评分和范围方面的多样性,使得不同研究结果的比较变得困难。大多数工具的不同健康素养水平的指标阈值和范围是基于同一研究中使用的其他成熟健康素养工具设定的,或者是基于专家对所需健康素养分数的评估。足够的健康素养可被视为成功完成在医疗保健环境中发挥作用所需的大多数任务的能力。已发现低健康素养或健康素养不足对健康和医疗保健使用有若干不利影响:正确服药和解读标签及健康信息的能力下降、老年人总体健康状况较差和死亡风险较高、急诊科和医院就诊次数增加以及预防性干预措施的使用减少。大多数研究健康素养与知情同意之间关系的结果表明,健康素养低的患者不太可能参与有关其医疗保健的决策。根据最近的一项文献综述,发现医疗保健使用者的读写能力以及其他因素是患者提供充分知情同意能力的重要决定因素。根据该综述,21%至86%的患者能够回忆起其医疗程序的潜在风险和并发症。这个百分比可能甚至更低,因为大多数纳入研究提及的是自我报告的回忆,这可能是一种有缺陷的测量方法。根据文献,与知情同意相关的许多书面材料对于医疗保健使用者来说太难理解。此外,在他们的研究中,麦卡锡等人观察到在会诊期间,医生说话并使用的语言比患者复杂得多,这可能导致患者沟通不畅,主要是对于读写能力有限的患者。上述情况可能会引发一些关键的法律和伦理问题。塑造与患者互动条件的健康专业人员有责任采取适当的干预措施,例如考虑患者健康素养的沟通方式。这些干预措施可能对改善知情同意过程有重大贡献。谢里丹等人对旨在减少一般有限健康素养影响的干预措施进行了系统评价。纳入研究的一些结果是理解和行为意图,这些结果可能与知情同意过程密切相关。在没有区分涉及知情同意过程的研究的情况下,他们得出结论,一些健康素养干预措施,例如在叙述中添加视频,可以提高个人的理解能力。申克等人对旨在提高患者对医疗和外科手术程序理解的干预措施进行了系统评价,包括截至2008年发表的文章。他们的结论之一是,在大多数研究中,虽然需要特别关注为读写能力有限患者提供的干预措施,但患者的读写能力并未得到解决或评估。从那时起,许多关于健康素养和知情同意的文章已经发表。根据最近一篇关于知情同意的健康素养最佳实践和新模式的综述,其中包括2004年至2014年发表的论文,超过一半的收集文章是2010年以后发表的。该综述仅限于美国及其领土内的文献,并且没有专注于对文献中推荐实践的评估,得出结论认为简化书面文件和澄清口头交流的不同策略,以及使用多媒体格式和计算机化交流可能会改善知情同意所需的健康素养沟通的限制。研究评估了旨在改善知情同意过程的健康素养干预措施的有效性。知情同意过程的改善可能不仅指患者的理解,还例如指对所提供信息的回忆、询问澄清的意图或对程序的满意度。文献中描述和测试的干预措施侧重于印刷材料的改进、过程(如适当信息的传达)或两者。戴维斯等人进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了两份六年级水平的脊髓灰质炎疫苗宣传册——一份国际标准化宣传册和一份易读宣传册——在家长中的理解情况和偏好。尽管干预组(N = 304)的家长理解率显著高于对照组(N = 306)(65%对60%,p < 0.005),但作者得出结论,在不使用教学图形的情况下,简化书面材料会增加吸引力,但不会将理解提高到足够水平。同样,洛伦岑等人发现与原始同意文件相比,医疗保健使用者更常阅读一份对手术程序通俗易懂的知情同意文件;然而,在参与者用自己的语言描述程序的能力方面没有发现差异。康等人评估了应用三种不同知情同意程序的儿童及其父母对正畸知情同意的回忆和理解情况(N = 90)。根据这项研究,与提高可读性的形式或通常的知情同意形式相比,提高同意材料的可读性和知情同意过程(音频和视觉提示)相结合,能使患者有更好的回忆,其父母有更好的回忆和理解。史密斯等人进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了专门为低读写能力成年人设计的决策辅助工具(小册子和DVD)(N = 357)与关于结肠癌筛查的标准信息小册子(N = 173)。他们发现干预组做出知情选择的参与者比例比对照组高22%(34%对12%,P < 0.001)。松山等人(摘要截断)

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