• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用集中式交付策略的新型结直肠癌决策辅助工具的实施与评估

Implementation and Evaluation of a Novel Colorectal Cancer Decision Aid Using a Centralized Delivery Strategy.

作者信息

Tate Channing E, Matlock Daniel D, Dalton Alexandra F, Schilling Lisa M, Marcus Alexandra, Schommer Tiffany, Lyon Corey, Lewis Carmen L

出版信息

Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018 Jun;44(6):353-360. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.11.009. Epub 2018 Apr 25.

DOI:10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.11.009
PMID:29793886
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5975652/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States; however, CRC screening reduces both incidence and mortality rates. Patient decision aids (DAs) are an evidence-based strategy to support patients making health-related decisions. CRC screening DAs can be unsuccessful due to provider preferences for colonoscopy and lack of effective DA implementation strategies within clinical settings.

METHODS

A hybrid implementation-effectiveness study was conducted testing the feasibility of using an existing centralized preventive health screening outreach infrastructure to implement a novel CRC DA across a health care system. Participants included primary care patients at one of three study clinics. Implementation was assessed by determining whether patients remembered receiving the DA and were aware of CRC screening options. Effectiveness was measured by comparing overall screening rates between the control and intervention groups.

RESULTS

Using a centralized delivery system was a feasible and efficient method for implementing DAs to a large academic health system. More than 90% of the intervention group remembered receiving the DA, and 80% found it helpful in their decision-making process. The DA was successful in improving CRC screening knowledge; however, overall CRC screening rates significantly decreased between the control and intervention periods (50.8% vs. 39.2%, respectively; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Centralized delivery is a feasible method for DA implementation. Although DAs increase knowledge, the true effectiveness of CRC DAs in clinical settings is unknown, as a result of the number in screening tests, diversity in DA format, and the variability in dissemination and implementation practices.

摘要

背景

在美国,结直肠癌(CRC)是癌症相关死亡的第二大主要原因;然而,CRC筛查可降低发病率和死亡率。患者决策辅助工具(DAs)是一种基于证据的策略,用于支持患者做出与健康相关的决策。由于临床医生对结肠镜检查的偏好以及临床环境中缺乏有效的DA实施策略,CRC筛查DAs可能并不成功。

方法

开展了一项混合实施-效果研究,测试利用现有的集中式预防性健康筛查推广基础设施在整个医疗系统中实施一种新型CRC DA的可行性。参与者包括三个研究诊所之一的初级保健患者。通过确定患者是否记得收到DA并了解CRC筛查选项来评估实施情况。通过比较对照组和干预组的总体筛查率来衡量效果。

结果

使用集中式交付系统是向大型学术医疗系统实施DAs的一种可行且有效的方法。超过90%的干预组患者记得收到了DA,80%的患者认为它对其决策过程有帮助。该DA成功提高了CRC筛查知识;然而,对照组和干预期之间的总体CRC筛查率显著下降(分别为50.8%和39.2%;p = 0.03)。

结论

集中式交付是实施DA的一种可行方法。尽管DAs增加了知识,但由于筛查测试的数量、DA格式的多样性以及传播和实施实践的变异性,CRC DAs在临床环境中的真正效果尚不清楚。

相似文献

1
Implementation and Evaluation of a Novel Colorectal Cancer Decision Aid Using a Centralized Delivery Strategy.使用集中式交付策略的新型结直肠癌决策辅助工具的实施与评估
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2018 Jun;44(6):353-360. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.11.009. Epub 2018 Apr 25.
2
Comparing the effect of a decision aid plus patient navigation with usual care on colorectal cancer screening completion in vulnerable populations: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.比较决策辅助工具加患者导航与常规护理对弱势群体结直肠癌筛查完成情况的影响:一项随机对照试验的研究方案
Trials. 2014 Jul 8;15:275. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-275.
3
Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.联合患者决策辅助工具与患者导航服务对比常规护理对弱势患者群体进行结直肠癌筛查的效果:一项随机临床试验
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jul 1;177(7):967-974. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1294.
4
The Effect of a Health Education Intervention on Jordanian Participants' Colorectal Cancer Knowledge, Health Perceptions, and Screening Practices.健康教育干预对约旦参与者的结直肠癌知识、健康认知及筛查行为的影响
Cancer Nurs. 2018 May/Jun;41(3):226-237. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000480.
5
Effectiveness of a decision aid for promoting colorectal cancer screening in Spain: a randomized trial.促进西班牙结直肠癌筛查的决策辅助工具的效果:一项随机试验。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jan 10;19(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0739-6.
6
A Decision Aid to Promote Appropriate Colorectal Cancer Screening among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.促进老年人适当进行结直肠癌筛查的决策辅助工具:一项随机对照试验。
Med Decis Making. 2018 Jul;38(5):614-624. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18773713.
7
Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.在真实初级保健环境中实施邮寄结直肠癌粪便筛查检测:有前景的实施实践和改进机会。
Prev Sci. 2024 Apr;25(Suppl 1):124-135. doi: 10.1007/s11121-023-01496-3. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
8
The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients.仅医生参与及医生-患者共同参与的干预措施对医疗服务提供者与非裔美国人和拉丁裔患者之间结直肠癌筛查讨论的有效性。
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Dec;30(12):1780-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3381-8. Epub 2015 May 19.
9
Changes in the choice of colorectal cancer screening tests in primary care settings from 7,845 prospectively collected surveys.从 7845 份前瞻性收集的调查中观察到初级保健环境中结直肠癌筛查检测选择的变化。
Cancer Causes Control. 2012 Sep;23(9):1541-8. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012-0031-x. Epub 2012 Jul 27.
10
Colorectal cancer risk information presented by a nonphysician assistant does not increase screening rates.由非医生助理提供的结直肠癌风险信息不会提高筛查率。
Can Fam Physician. 2014 Aug;60(8):731-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies.在欧洲实施有组织的结直肠癌筛查计划——系统评价决定因素和策略的方案。
Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 27;12(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02193-6.

本文引用的文献

1
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.结直肠癌筛查:美国预防服务工作组推荐声明。
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2564-2575. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5989.
2
Adherence to Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 3 Years.三年内对结直肠癌筛查竞争策略的依从性
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;111(1):105-14. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.367. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
3
Communication preference moderates the effect of a tailored intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among African Americans.沟通偏好会调节一种针对性干预措施对提高非裔美国人结直肠癌筛查率的效果。
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Dec;97(3):370-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.08.013. Epub 2014 Sep 3.
4
Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia.比较三种用于结直肠癌筛查决策的价值澄清方法:在美国和澳大利亚进行的一项随机试验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Mar;29(3):507-13. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2701-0. Epub 2013 Nov 23.
5
Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use--United States, 2012.生命体征:2012 年美国结直肠癌筛查检测使用情况。
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013 Nov 8;62(44):881-8.
6
Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussion content and patients' use of colorectal cancer screening.患者与医生关于结直肠癌筛查的讨论内容及患者对结直肠癌筛查的使用情况。
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jan;94(1):76-82. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.008. Epub 2013 Sep 17.
7
Two controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of a mailed intervention to increase colon cancer screening.两项对照试验,以确定邮寄干预措施在增加结肠癌筛查方面的有效性。
N C Med J. 2012 Mar-Apr;73(2):93-8.
8
Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies.结直肠癌筛查的依从性:竞争策略的随机临床试验。
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):575-82. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332.
9
Patterns of colorectal cancer test use, including CT colonography, in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey.2010 年全国健康访谈调查中的结直肠癌检测使用情况,包括 CT 结肠成像。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jun;21(6):895-904. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0192. Epub 2012 Apr 6.
10
Toward systematic integration between self-determination theory and motivational interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle.朝着将自我决定理论和动机性访谈进行系统性整合的方向发展:自主性或意志作为基本理论原则——以上二者分别是自上而下和自下而上干预措施发展的范例。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Mar 2;9:23. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-23.