• 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

培养共同决策中的选择意识:对视频记录的临床会诊的二次分析

Fostering Choice Awareness for Shared Decision Making: A Secondary Analysis of Video-Recorded Clinical Encounters.

作者信息

Kunneman Marleen, Branda Megan E, Hargraves Ian, Pieterse Arwen H, Montori Victor M

机构信息

Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Feb 1;2(1):60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.12.002. eCollection 2018 Mar.

DOI:10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.12.002
PMID:30225433
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6124329/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which (1) clinicians, using or not using conversation aids, foster choice awareness during clinical encounters and (2) fostering choice awareness, with or without conversation aids, is associated with greater patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomly selected 100 video-recorded encounters, stratified by topic and study arm, from a database of 10 clinical trials of SDM interventions in 7 clinical contexts: low-risk acute chest pain, stable angina, diabetes, depression, osteoporosis, and Graves disease. Reviewers, unaware of our hypothesis, coded recordings with the OPTION-12 scale to quantify the extent to which clinicians involved patients in decision making (SDM, 0-100 score). Blinded to OPTION-12 scale scores, we used a self-developed coding scale to code whether and how choice awareness was fostered.

RESULTS

Clinicians fostered choice awareness in 53 of 100 encounters. Fostering choice awareness was associated with a higher OPTION-12 scale score (adjusted [for using vs not using a conversation aid] predicted mean difference, 20; 95% CI, 11-29). Using a conversation aid was associated with a higher, nonsignificant chance of fostering choice awareness (N=31 of 50 [62%] vs N=22 of 50 [44%]; adjusted [for trial] =.34) and with a higher OPTION-12 scale score, although adjusting for fostering choice awareness mitigated this effect (adjusted predicted mean difference 5.8; 95% CI, -1.3-12.8).

CONCLUSION

Fostering choice awareness is linked to a better execution of other SDM steps, such as informing patients or discussing preferences, even when SDM tools are not available or not used.

摘要

目的

评估(1)使用或不使用沟通辅助工具的临床医生在临床诊疗过程中促进选择意识的程度,以及(2)无论有无沟通辅助工具,促进选择意识是否与患者更多地参与共同决策(SDM)相关。

患者与方法

我们从7种临床情境下的10项SDM干预临床试验数据库中,按主题和研究组分层,随机选取100次视频记录的诊疗过程,这些临床情境包括:低风险急性胸痛、稳定型心绞痛、糖尿病、抑郁症、骨质疏松症和格雷夫斯病。对假设不知情的评审人员使用OPTION - 12量表对记录进行编码,以量化临床医生让患者参与决策的程度(SDM,0 - 100分)。在对OPTION - 12量表评分不知情的情况下,我们使用自行开发的编码量表对是否以及如何促进选择意识进行编码。

结果

在100次诊疗过程中,临床医生在53次诊疗中促进了选择意识。促进选择意识与更高的OPTION - 12量表评分相关(调整后[使用与未使用沟通辅助工具]预测平均差异为20;95%置信区间,11 - 29)。使用沟通辅助工具与促进选择意识的可能性更高但无统计学意义相关(50例中有31例[62%] vs 50例中有22例[44%];调整后[按试验] = 0.34),并且与更高的OPTION - 12量表评分相关,尽管在调整促进选择意识后这种效应有所减轻(调整后预测平均差异为5.8;95%置信区间,-1.3 - 12.8)。

结论

促进选择意识与更好地执行其他SDM步骤相关,例如告知患者或讨论偏好,即使在没有SDM工具或未使用SDM工具的情况下也是如此。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e20f/6124329/f01e37013d48/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e20f/6124329/f01e37013d48/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e20f/6124329/f01e37013d48/gr1.jpg

相似文献

1
Fostering Choice Awareness for Shared Decision Making: A Secondary Analysis of Video-Recorded Clinical Encounters.培养共同决策中的选择意识:对视频记录的临床会诊的二次分析
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Feb 1;2(1):60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.12.002. eCollection 2018 Mar.
2
Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data.患者特征及临床医生在决策中让患者参与的程度:汇总数据的二次分析。
Med Decis Making. 2024 Apr;44(3):346-356. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241231721. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
3
Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.评估心房颤动患者卒中预防的共同决策:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Sep 1;180(9):1215-1224. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2908.
4
Problem-based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps.基于问题的共享决策制定:规范 SDM 步骤的作用。
Health Expect. 2023 Feb;26(1):282-289. doi: 10.1111/hex.13654. Epub 2022 Nov 29.
5
Do Shared Decision-Making Measures Reflect Key Elements of Shared Decision Making? A Content Review of Coding Schemes.共享决策措施是否反映了共享决策的关键要素?编码方案的内容回顾。
Med Decis Making. 2019 Oct;39(7):886-893. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19874347. Epub 2019 Sep 26.
6
Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes.成本沟通对决策结果的影响。
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Jun 12;5(4):802-810. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2021.05.006. eCollection 2021 Aug.
7
Problem-based shared decision-making in diabetes care: a secondary analysis of video-recorded encounters.基于问题的糖尿病护理中的共享决策:视频记录的医患交流的二次分析。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Jun;28(3):157-163. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112067. Epub 2023 Mar 2.
8
Assessing the feasibility and quality of shared decision making in China: evaluating a clinical encounter intervention for Chinese patients.评估中国共同决策的可行性和质量:评估针对中国患者的临床诊疗干预措施。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Nov 14;10:2341-2350. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S115115. eCollection 2016.
9
What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata.最重要的是:跨越社会经济阶层的乳腺癌手术对话辅助工具的随机对照试验。
Cancer. 2021 Feb 1;127(3):422-436. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33248. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
10
Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: Analysis from a cluster randomized trial.仅文本和图片对话辅助均支持乳腺癌手术的共享决策:一项集群随机试验分析。
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Nov;103(11):2235-2243. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.07.015. Epub 2020 Jul 28.

引用本文的文献

1
[Shared decision making-strengthening patient-physiciant relations through joint deliberation].[共同决策——通过联合审议加强医患关系]
Urologie. 2025 Jul 21. doi: 10.1007/s00120-025-02638-x.
2
Patient experiences of shared decision-making following a displaced collarbone injury: A qualitative interview study.锁骨移位骨折后患者共同决策的体验:一项定性访谈研究
Clin Rehabil. 2025 Aug;39(8):1105-1115. doi: 10.1177/02692155251355440. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
3
Clinicians perspectives towards the application of shared decision making in tertiary CVD care including the multidisciplinary heart team.

本文引用的文献

1
Shared Decision Making and Improving Health Care: The Answer Is Not In.共同决策与改善医疗保健:答案尚未揭晓。
JAMA. 2017 Aug 15;318(7):617-618. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.10168.
2
A systematic review of decision aids that facilitate elements of shared decision-making in chronic illnesses: a review protocol.系统评价促进慢性病共同决策要素的决策辅助工具:研究方案。
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 7;6(1):155. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0557-9.
3
Measurement with a wink.眨眼测量。
临床医生对包括多学科心脏团队在内的三级心血管疾病护理中应用共同决策的看法。
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2025 Mar 26;58:101657. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2025.101657. eCollection 2025 Jun.
4
Fostering active choice to empower behavioral change to reduce cardiovascular risk: A web-based randomized controlled trial.促进积极选择以推动行为改变从而降低心血管风险:一项基于网络的随机对照试验。
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 1;19(8):e0304897. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304897. eCollection 2024.
5
Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice.医疗保健专业人员对基层医疗中实施共同决策的看法:一项来自虚拟实践社区的定性研究
Int J Integr Care. 2024 Apr 16;24(2):8. doi: 10.5334/ijic.6554. eCollection 2024 Apr-Jun.
6
Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study.患者视角与医疗保健提供者对早期直肠癌治疗的看法:一项定性研究。
BMC Cancer. 2023 Dec 21;23(1):1266. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11734-0.
7
Patient Preferences in Metastatic Breast Cancer Care: A Scoping Review.转移性乳腺癌护理中的患者偏好:一项范围综述
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Aug 30;15(17):4331. doi: 10.3390/cancers15174331.
8
Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study.患者使用甲状腺结节评估共享决策工具接受护理的反馈-一项观察性研究。
Endocrine. 2023 Apr;80(1):124-133. doi: 10.1007/s12020-022-03277-4. Epub 2022 Dec 19.
9
The limits of shared decision making.共同决策的局限性。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Aug;28(4):218-221. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112089. Epub 2022 Dec 15.
10
Shared decision-making as a method of care.共同决策作为一种护理方法。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Aug;28(4):213-217. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112068. Epub 2022 Dec 2.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):849-851. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006814. Epub 2017 Jul 21.
4
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.为面临医疗治疗或筛查决策的人们提供的决策辅助工具。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4(4):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
5
PCI Choice Decision Aid for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial.用于稳定型冠状动脉疾病的PCI选择决策辅助工具:一项随机试验。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 Nov;9(6):767-776. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002641. Epub 2016 Nov 1.
6
What Is Shared Decision Making? (and What It Is Not).什么是共同决策?(以及它不是什么)。
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;23(12):1320-1324. doi: 10.1111/acem.13065. Epub 2016 Nov 25.
7
Use of implicit persuasion in decision making about adjuvant cancer treatment: A potential barrier to shared decision making.在辅助性癌症治疗决策中使用隐性说服:共同决策的潜在障碍。
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Oct;66:55-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.011. Epub 2016 Aug 15.
8
Caring with evidence based medicine.基于循证医学的照护。
BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i3530. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3530.
9
The Patient Engagement Imperative.患者参与的必要性。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):563. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0337.
10
Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.基层医疗中抗抑郁药物的共同决策:一项整群随机试验。
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Nov;175(11):1761-70. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5214.