Suppr超能文献

治疗决策辅助工具中使用了哪些信息?对构成健康决策辅助工具的证据类型进行的系统评价。

What information is used in treatment decision aids? A systematic review of the types of evidence populating health decision aids.

作者信息

Clifford Amanda M, Ryan Jean, Walsh Cathal, McCurtin Arlene

机构信息

Department of Clinical Therapies, Health Sciences Building, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Feb 23;17(1):22. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0415-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids (DAs) are support tools designed to provide patients with relevant information to help them make informed decisions about their healthcare. While DAs can be effective in improving patient knowledge and decision quality, it is unknown what types of information and evidence are used to populate such decision tools.

METHODS

Systematic methods were used to identify and appraise the relevant literature and patient DAs published between 2006 and 2015. Six databases (Academic Search Complete, AMED, CINAHL, Biomedical Reference Collection, General Sciences and MEDLINE) and reference list searching were used. Articles evaluating the effectiveness of the DAs were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The content, quality and sources of evidence in the decision aids were evaluated using the IPDASi-SF and a novel classification system. Findings were synthesised and a narrative analysis was performed on the results.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies representing ten DAs met the inclusion criteria. The IPDASI-SF score ranged from 9 to 16 indicating many of the studies met the majority of quality criteria. Sources of evidence were described but reports were sometimes generic or missing important information. The majority of DAs incorporated high quality research evidence including systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Patient and practice evidence was less commonly employed, with only a third of included DAs using these to populate decision aid content. The quality of practice and patient evidence ranged from high to low. Contextual factors were addressed across all DAs to varying degrees and covered a range of factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This is an initial study examining the information and evidence used to populate DAs. While research evidence and contextual factors are well represented in included DAs, consideration should be given to incorporating high quality information representing all four pillars of evidence based practice when developing DAs. Further, patient and expert practice evidence should be acquired rigorously and DAs should report the means by which such evidence is obtained with citations clearly provided.

摘要

背景

患者决策辅助工具(DAs)是旨在为患者提供相关信息,以帮助他们对自身医疗保健做出明智决策的支持工具。虽然决策辅助工具在提高患者知识水平和决策质量方面可能有效,但尚不清楚用于填充此类决策工具的信息和证据类型。

方法

采用系统方法识别和评估2006年至2015年间发表的相关文献和患者决策辅助工具。使用了六个数据库(学术搜索完整版、医学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库、生物医学参考文集、综合科学数据库和医学期刊数据库)以及参考文献列表搜索。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估评估决策辅助工具有效性的文章。使用IPDASi-SF和一种新颖的分类系统评估决策辅助工具中的证据内容、质量和来源。对研究结果进行综合,并对结果进行叙述性分析。

结果

代表十种决策辅助工具的十三项研究符合纳入标准。IPDASI-SF评分范围为9至16,表明许多研究符合大多数质量标准。描述了证据来源,但报告有时较为笼统或缺少重要信息。大多数决策辅助工具纳入了高质量的研究证据,包括系统评价和荟萃分析。患者和实践证据较少被采用,只有三分之一的纳入决策辅助工具使用这些证据来填充决策辅助内容。实践和患者证据的质量从高到低不等。所有决策辅助工具都不同程度地涉及了背景因素,涵盖了一系列因素。

结论

这是一项初步研究,考察了用于填充决策辅助工具的信息和证据。虽然纳入的决策辅助工具中研究证据和背景因素得到了充分体现,但在开发决策辅助工具时,应考虑纳入代表循证实践四大支柱的高质量信息。此外,应严格获取患者和专家实践证据,决策辅助工具应报告获取此类证据的方式,并明确提供引用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0f03/5322640/333a276ed042/12911_2017_415_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