Trenaman Logan, Selva Anna, Desroches Sophie, Singh Kavita, Bissonnette Janice, Bansback Nick, Stacey Dawn
School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3, Canada; Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, 7th Floor, 828 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver V5Z 1M9, Canada; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, 588 - 1081 Burrard Street, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver V6Z 1Y6, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 725 Parkdale Avenue, Ottawa K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Epidemiology and Public Health Department-Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Sep;77:15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.032. Epub 2016 May 13.
To explore how studies of decision aids conceptualize and measure adherence and to evaluate the effect of patient decision aids on adherence.
A subanalysis of adherence studies included in the 2014 Cochrane review on patient decision aids. An adherence framework for decision aid trials is presented which includes two types of adherence: "adherence to choice" and "adherence to treatment." Included studies were classified based on the adherence framework, and their impact on adherence was assessed.
Thirteen trials involving 2,115 patients were included. Of these 13, eight measured "adherence to choice" and 10 measured "adherence to treatment." There was considerable heterogeneity in how adherence was measured, with studies varying in whether they considered baseline choice, follow-up choice, or neither, and whether they presented separate or aggregated adherence measures. No studies measuring "adherence to choice" reported significant differences between the decision aid and comparator, whereas four studies measuring adherence to treatment reported a statistically significant difference between the decision aid and comparator, with three favoring the decision aid arm.
The adherence framework provided insight into important measurement factors. There remains considerable heterogeneity in measures of adherence which makes it difficult to draw conclusions.
探讨决策辅助工具的研究如何概念化和衡量依从性,并评估患者决策辅助工具对依从性的影响。
对2014年Cochrane关于患者决策辅助工具的综述中纳入的依从性研究进行亚分析。提出了一个决策辅助工具试验的依从性框架,其中包括两种类型的依从性:“对选择的依从性”和“对治疗的依从性”。根据依从性框架对纳入的研究进行分类,并评估其对依从性的影响。
纳入了涉及2115名患者的13项试验。在这13项试验中,8项测量了“对选择的依从性”,10项测量了“对治疗的依从性”。在依从性的测量方式上存在相当大的异质性,研究在是否考虑基线选择、随访选择或两者都不考虑,以及是否呈现单独或汇总的依从性测量方面各不相同。没有测量“对选择的依从性”的研究报告决策辅助工具和对照之间存在显著差异,而4项测量对治疗依从性的研究报告决策辅助工具和对照之间存在统计学上的显著差异,其中3项有利于决策辅助工具组。
依从性框架为重要的测量因素提供了见解。依从性测量方面仍然存在相当大的异质性,这使得难以得出结论。