• 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

相似文献

1
Ambivalence: A Key to Clinical Trial Participation?矛盾心理:临床试验参与的关键因素?
Front Oncol. 2018 Aug 10;8:300. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00300. eCollection 2018.
2
Building trust and diversity in patient-centered oncology clinical trials: An integrated model.在以患者为中心的肿瘤学临床试验中建立信任和多样性:一种综合模式。
Clin Trials. 2017 Apr;14(2):170-179. doi: 10.1177/1740774516688860. Epub 2017 Feb 7.
3
Research protocol for bridging research, accurate information and dialogue (BRAID)-clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a community-based intervention to improve trust and diversify participation in clinical trials.桥接研究、准确信息和对话(BRAID)临床试验研究方案:一项基于社区的干预措施改善临床试验中信任和多样化参与的混合方法研究。
Front Public Health. 2024 Sep 16;12:1407726. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1407726. eCollection 2024.
4
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
5
Ambivalence: Prerequisite for success in motivational interviewing with adolescents?矛盾情绪:青少年动机性访谈成功的先决条件?
Addiction. 2016 Nov;111(11):1900-1907. doi: 10.1111/add.13286. Epub 2016 Jan 27.
6
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
7
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
8
Distrust and patients in intercultural healthcare: A qualitative interview study.不信任与跨文化医疗保健中的患者:一项定性访谈研究。
Nurs Ethics. 2018 May;25(3):313-323. doi: 10.1177/0969733016652449. Epub 2016 Jun 9.
9
Patient distrust in pharmaceutical companies: an explanation for women under-representation in respiratory clinical trials?患者对制药公司的不信任:呼吸临床试验中女性代表性不足的一个解释?
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Aug 13;21(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00509-y.
10
Hmong Older Adults' Perceptions of Insider and Outsider Researchers: Does It Matter for Research Participation?苗族老年人对内部和外部研究人员的看法:这对研究参与有影响吗?
Nurs Res. 2018 May/Jun;67(3):222-230. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000277.

引用本文的文献

1
Motivation, barriers, and willingness to participate in clinical trials for novel cancer treatments among the Vietnamese population.越南人群参与新型癌症治疗临床试验的动机、障碍及意愿
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 29;20(8):e0331250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331250. eCollection 2025.
2
Public Perception of Clinical Trials and Its Predictors Among Polish Adults.波兰成年人对临床试验的公众认知及其预测因素
J Clin Med. 2025 May 8;14(10):3279. doi: 10.3390/jcm14103279.
3
Recruitment and retention of clinical trial participants: understanding motivations of patients with chronic pain and other populations.临床试验参与者的招募与留存:了解慢性疼痛患者及其他人群的动机
Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2024 Mar 28;4:1330937. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2023.1330937. eCollection 2023.
4
The Essential Need for Trust When Transmission Risk Cannot Be Eliminated in HIV-Remission Trials.在 HIV 缓解试验中无法消除传播风险时,信任至关重要。
Ethics Hum Res. 2023 Jul-Aug;45(4):2-15. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500172.
5
Creating and Implementing a Principal Investigator Tool Kit for Enhancing Accrual to Late Phase Clinical Trials: Development and Usability Study.创建并实施主要研究者工具包以提高晚期临床试验的入组率:开发与可用性研究
JMIR Cancer. 2022 Aug 25;8(3):e38514. doi: 10.2196/38514.
6
Cancer clinical trials - Survey evaluating patient participation and acceptance in a university-based Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC).癌症临床试验——一项评估患者参与度及在一所大学附属综合癌症中心(CCC)接受程度的调查。
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2018 Oct 4;13:44-49. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2018.10.001. eCollection 2018 Nov.

本文引用的文献

1
Tele-Motivational Interviewing for Cancer Survivors: Feasibility, Preliminary Efficacy, and Lessons Learned.癌症幸存者的远程动机访谈:可行性、初步疗效和经验教训。
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2018 Jan;50(1):19-32.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.05.352.
2
Mixed Emotions Within the Context of Goal Pursuit.目标追求背景下的复杂情绪。
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2017 Jun;15:46-50. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.015. Epub 2017 May 30.
3
Cultural Guides, Cultural Critics: Distrust of Doctors and Social Support during Mental Health Treatment.文化引导者,文化评论家:在心理健康治疗期间对医生的不信任和社会支持。
J Health Soc Behav. 2017 Dec;58(4):503-519. doi: 10.1177/0022146517736291. Epub 2017 Oct 12.
4
A systematic review of motivational interviewing in healthcare: the potential of motivational interviewing to address the lifestyle factors relevant to multimorbidity.医疗保健中动机性访谈的系统评价:动机性访谈在解决与多种疾病相关的生活方式因素方面的潜力。
J Comorb. 2015 Dec 28;5:162-174. doi: 10.15256/joc.2015.5.55. eCollection 2015.
5
Building trust and diversity in patient-centered oncology clinical trials: An integrated model.在以患者为中心的肿瘤学临床试验中建立信任和多样性:一种综合模式。
Clin Trials. 2017 Apr;14(2):170-179. doi: 10.1177/1740774516688860. Epub 2017 Feb 7.
6
Toward a New Era of Trust and Transparency in Clinical Trials.迈向临床试验信任与透明的新时代。
JAMA. 2016 Oct 4;316(13):1353-1354. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.14668.
7
Motivational interviewing to improve health screening uptake: A systematic review.采用动机性访谈提高健康筛查参与率:一项系统评价。
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Feb;100(2):190-198. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.08.027. Epub 2016 Aug 26.
8
An Analysis of Race-related Attitudes and Beliefs in Black Cancer Patients: Implications for Health Care Disparities.黑人癌症患者中与种族相关的态度和信念分析:对医疗保健差异的影响。
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2016;27(3):1503-20. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2016.0115.
9
The good and bad of ambivalence: Desiring ambivalence under outcome uncertainty.矛盾情绪的利弊:在结果不确定的情况下渴望矛盾情绪。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Apr;110(4):493-508. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000047.
10
A systematic review of Motivational Interviewing interventions in cancer patients and survivors.对癌症患者及幸存者中动机性访谈干预措施的系统评价。
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jul;99(7):1099-1105. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.02.003. Epub 2016 Feb 8.

矛盾心理:临床试验参与的关键因素?

Ambivalence: A Key to Clinical Trial Participation?

作者信息

Chilton Janice A, Rasmus Monica L, Lytton Jay, Kaplan Charles D, Jones Lovell A, Hurd Thelma C

机构信息

Pharmacy Administration and Administrative Health Sciences, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX, United States.

Adult Mental Health and Wellnes, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States.

出版信息

Front Oncol. 2018 Aug 10;8:300. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00300. eCollection 2018.

DOI:10.3389/fonc.2018.00300
PMID:30148115
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6095971/
Abstract

Trust exerts a multidimensional influence at the interpersonal level in the clinical trials setting. Trust and distrust are dynamic states that are impacted, either positively or negatively, with each participant-clinical trials team interaction. Currently, accepted models of trust posit that trust and distrust coexist and their effects on engagement and retention in clinical trials are mediated by ambivalence. While understanding of trust has been informed by a robust body of work, the role of distrust and ambivalence in the trust building process are less well understood. Furthermore, the role of ambivalence and its relationship to trust and distrust in the clinical trials and oncology settings are not known. Ambivalence is a normal and uncomfortable state in the complex decision making process that characterizes the recruitment and active treatment phases of the clinical trials experience. The current review was conducted to understand the constructs of ambivalence as a mediator of trust and distrust among vulnerable, minority participants through different stages of the oncology clinical trials continuum, its triggers and the contextual factors that might influence it in the setting of minority participation in oncology clinical trials. In addition, the researchers have sought to link theory to clinical intervention by investigating the feasibility and role of Motivational Interviewing in different stages of the clinical trials continuum. Findings suggest that ambivalence can be processed and managed to enable a participant to generate a response to their ambivalence. Thus, recognizing and managing triggers of ambivalence, which include, contradictory goals, role conflicts, membership dualities, and supporting participants through the process of reducing ambivalence is critical to successfully managing trust. Contextual factors related to the totality of one's previous health-care experience, specifically among the marginalized or vulnerable, can contribute to interpersonal ambivalence. In addition, changes in information gathering as a moderator of interpersonal ambivalence may have enormous implications for gathering, assessing, and accepting health information. Finally, motivational Interviewing has widespread applications in healthcare settings, which includes enabling participants to navigate ambivalence in shared-decision making with their clinician, as well as executing changes in participant behavior. Ultimately, the Integrated Model of Trust can incorporate the role of therapeutic techniques like Motivational Interviewing in different stages of the clinical trials continuum. Ambivalence is a key component of clinical trial participation; like trust, ambivalence can be managed and plays a major role in the management of trust in interpersonal relationships over time. The management of ambivalence may play a major role in increasing clinical trial participation particularly among the marginalized or the vulnerable, who may be more susceptible to feelings of ambivalence.

摘要

在临床试验环境中,信任在人际层面发挥着多维度的影响。信任和不信任是动态状态,在每个参与者与临床试验团队的互动中,它们会受到积极或消极的影响。目前,公认的信任模型认为信任和不信任并存,它们对临床试验参与度和留存率的影响是由矛盾心理介导的。虽然大量研究工作为理解信任提供了依据,但不信任和矛盾心理在信任建立过程中的作用却鲜为人知。此外,矛盾心理及其与临床试验和肿瘤学环境中信任与不信任的关系也尚不明确。矛盾心理是复杂决策过程中的一种正常且令人不适的状态,它贯穿于临床试验经历的招募和积极治疗阶段。本次综述旨在通过肿瘤学临床试验连续过程的不同阶段,了解矛盾心理作为弱势群体、少数族裔参与者中信任与不信任的调解因素的构成、其触发因素以及在少数族裔参与肿瘤学临床试验背景下可能影响它的情境因素。此外,研究人员试图通过研究动机性访谈在临床试验连续过程不同阶段的可行性和作用,将理论与临床干预联系起来。研究结果表明,矛盾心理可以得到处理和管理,使参与者能够对自己的矛盾心理做出反应。因此,识别和管理矛盾心理的触发因素,包括相互矛盾的目标、角色冲突、成员身份的双重性,并在减少矛盾心理的过程中支持参与者,对于成功管理信任至关重要。与个人以往整体医疗保健经历相关的情境因素,尤其是在边缘化或弱势群体中,可能会导致人际矛盾心理。此外,作为人际矛盾心理调节因素的信息收集变化,可能对收集、评估和接受健康信息产生巨大影响。最后,动机性访谈在医疗保健环境中有广泛应用,包括使参与者在与临床医生共同决策时应对矛盾心理,以及促使参与者行为发生改变。最终,信任综合模型可以纳入动机性访谈等治疗技术在临床试验连续过程不同阶段的作用。矛盾心理是临床试验参与的关键组成部分;与信任一样,矛盾心理可以得到管理,并且随着时间推移在人际关系中信任管理方面发挥重要作用。矛盾心理的管理可能在增加临床试验参与度方面发挥重要作用,特别是在边缘化或弱势群体中,他们可能更容易产生矛盾心理。