Suppr超能文献

当前的评估方法在多大程度上能评估预先医疗照护计划对患者临终关怀偏好与所接受关怀的一致性的影响:方法学综述。

How Well Do Current Measures Assess the Impact of Advance Care Planning on Concordance Between Patient Preferences for End-of-Life Care and the Care Received: A Methodological Review.

机构信息

The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018 Feb;55(2):480-495. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.09.008. Epub 2017 Sep 22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Research has begun to focus on whether Advance Care Planning (ACP) has the capacity to influence care, and to examine whether ACP can be effective in meeting patients' wishes at the end of their lives. Little attention has been paid, however, to the validity and clinical relevance of existing measures.

METHODS

A search of Medline and CINHAL identified ACP studies measuring concordance between end-of-life (EoL) preferences and the care received. Databases were searched from 2000 to August 2016. We developed a checklist to evaluate the quality of included studies. Data were collected on the proportion of patients who received concordant care, extracted from manuscript tables or calculated from the text.

OUTCOMES

Of 2941 papers initially identified, nine eligible studies were included. Proportions of patients who received concordant care varied from 14% to 98%. Studies were heterogeneous and methodologically poor, with limited attention paid to bias/external validity. Studies varied with regards to design of measures, the meaning of relevant terms like "preference" "EoL care" and "concordance," and the completeness of reported data.

CONCLUSION

Methodological variations and weaknesses compromise the validity of study results, and prevent meaningful comparisons between studies or synthesis of the results. Effectively evaluating whether ACP interventions enhance a patient's capacity to receive the care they want requires harmonization of research. This demands standardization of methods across studies, validating of instruments, and consensus based on a consistent conceptual framework regarding what constitutes a meaningful outcome measure.

摘要

背景

研究开始关注预先医疗照护计划(ACP)是否有能力影响医疗照护,并检验 ACP 是否能有效地满足患者在生命末期的愿望。然而,人们对现有衡量标准的有效性和临床相关性关注甚少。

方法

通过 Medline 和 CINHAL 检索,确定了衡量 EoL 偏好与所接受的医疗照护之间一致性的 ACP 研究。数据库检索范围为 2000 年至 2016 年 8 月。我们制定了一个清单来评估纳入研究的质量。从手稿表格中提取或从文本中计算出符合一致性医疗照护的患者比例的数据。

结果

最初确定的 2941 篇论文中,有 9 项符合条件的研究被纳入。符合一致性医疗照护的患者比例从 14%到 98%不等。研究之间存在异质性和方法学上的缺陷,对偏差/外部有效性的关注有限。研究在衡量标准的设计、“偏好”“EoL 照护”和“一致性”等相关术语的含义以及报告数据的完整性方面存在差异。

结论

方法学上的差异和弱点影响了研究结果的有效性,阻碍了研究之间的有意义比较或结果的综合。有效地评估 ACP 干预是否增强了患者接受他们想要的医疗照护的能力,需要进行研究的协调。这需要在研究之间实现方法标准化、工具验证,并基于一致的概念框架就构成有意义的结果衡量标准达成共识。

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