Nickel Brooke, Barratt Alexandra, Copp Tessa, Moynihan Ray, McCaffery Kirsten
Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 10;7(7):e014129. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129.
Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.
Systematic review.
Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition.
Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions.
PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.
为防止过度诊断并减少过度治疗带来的相关危害,多个专家小组现已建议改变对低风险、筛查发现病症的术语表述。然而,术语对患者治疗偏好的影响尚未得到充分理解。本综述旨在综合关于术语及其对治疗决策影响的现有研究。
系统综述。
纳入比较两种或更多术语来描述同一病症并测量对治疗或管理偏好及/或选择影响的研究。通过从数据库建库至2017年4月的检索以及参考文献列表来识别研究。两位作者评估研究的纳入资格,并经研究团队核实,提取并交叉核对数据,评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
在识别出的1399篇标题中,七项研究符合纳入标准,所有研究均包含假设情景。六项研究为定量研究,一项为定性研究。其中六项研究质量较高。研究涵盖多种病症:原位导管癌(3项)、胃食管反流病(1项)、结膜炎(1项)、多囊卵巢综合征(1项)和骨折(1项)。每项研究中比较的术语因所评估的病症而异。基于对数据的叙述性综合分析,当使用更医学化或精确的术语来描述病症时,通常会导致偏好转向更具侵入性的治疗方式,和/或对病症焦虑程度及感知严重程度的评分更高。
在这些研究中,对同一病症使用不同术语会以一致的模式影响治疗偏好和心理结果。改变术语可能是减少患者对低风险病症采取积极治疗反应偏好的一种策略。
PROSPERO:CRD42016035643。