• 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

探索医学肿瘤学患者的健康素养和风险沟通偏好。

Exploring health literacy and preferences for risk communication among medical oncology patients.

机构信息

Health Behaviour Research Collaborative, School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2018 Sep 18;13(9):e0203988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203988. eCollection 2018.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0203988
PMID:30226878
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6143261/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To explore adult medical oncology outpatients' understanding of and preferences for the format of health risk information.

METHODS

Two surveys, one assessing sociodemographic characteristics and a second survey examining perceptions of risk information.

RESULTS

Of the 361 (74%) consenting patients, 210 completed at least one question on risk communication. 17% to 65% of patients understood numeric risk information, depending on the format of the information. More than 50% of people interpreted a "very good" chance of remission as greater than 80%, greater than 90% or 100%. The most preferred format of information was in both words and numbers (38% to 43%) followed by words alone (28% to 30%).

CONCLUSION

Numeric risk information is understood by 17% to 65% of respondents, depending on the format. Interpretation of verbal risk information is highly variable, posing a risk of misunderstanding. Provision of information in both words and numbers may assist in aiding comprehension.

摘要

目的

探讨成人肿瘤内科门诊患者对健康风险信息格式的理解和偏好。

方法

进行了两项调查,第一项评估社会人口统计学特征,第二项调查评估对风险信息的认知。

结果

在 361 名(74%)同意参与的患者中,210 名患者至少完成了一项风险沟通问题的回答。根据信息格式的不同,17%至 65%的患者理解数值风险信息。超过 50%的人将“非常高的缓解机会”解释为大于 80%、大于 90%或 100%。最受欢迎的信息格式是文字加数字(38%至 43%),其次是仅文字(28%至 30%)。

结论

根据格式的不同,17%至 65%的受访者可以理解数值风险信息。对口头风险信息的解释差异很大,存在误解的风险。提供文字和数字两种形式的信息可能有助于帮助理解。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/42ce/6143261/57498fa5d168/pone.0203988.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/42ce/6143261/57498fa5d168/pone.0203988.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/42ce/6143261/57498fa5d168/pone.0203988.g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Exploring health literacy and preferences for risk communication among medical oncology patients.探索医学肿瘤学患者的健康素养和风险沟通偏好。
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 18;13(9):e0203988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203988. eCollection 2018.
2
Tailoring risk communication to improve comprehension: Do patient preferences help or hurt?定制风险沟通以提高理解:患者偏好是有帮助还是有损害?
Health Psychol. 2016 Sep;35(9):1007-16. doi: 10.1037/hea0000367. Epub 2016 May 16.
3
Cancer Patients Numeracy and Preferences for Information Presentation-a Survey Among German Cancer Patients.癌症患者的数字能力及对信息呈现方式的偏好——一项针对德国癌症患者的调查
J Cancer Educ. 2020 Feb;35(1):22-27. doi: 10.1007/s13187-018-1435-4.
4
Patient Preference for Medical Information in the Emergency Department: Post-Test Survey of a Random Allocation Intervention.急诊科患者对医疗信息的偏好:随机分配干预的测试后调查
J Emerg Nurs. 2019 Sep;45(5):517-522.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2019.05.009.
5
Examining Generalizability of Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Cessation of Screening Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Low Health Literacy.老年低健康素养人群停止筛查结肠镜检查偏好的可推广性研究
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov;34(11):2512-2519. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05258-2. Epub 2019 Aug 26.
6
Do we get it right? Radiation oncology outpatients' perceptions of the patient centredness of life expectancy disclosure.我们做对了吗?放射肿瘤学门诊患者对预期寿命披露中以患者为中心的看法。
Psychooncology. 2013 Dec;22(12):2720-8. doi: 10.1002/pon.3337. Epub 2013 Jun 26.
7
Patients' communication preferences for receiving a cancer diagnosis: Differences depending on cancer stage.患者对接受癌症诊断的沟通偏好:因癌症阶段而异。
Psychooncology. 2020 Oct;29(10):1540-1548. doi: 10.1002/pon.5447. Epub 2020 Jul 30.
8
Factors associated with patient preferences for communication of bad news.与患者对坏消息告知方式的偏好相关的因素。
Palliat Support Care. 2017 Jun;15(3):328-335. doi: 10.1017/S147895151600078X. Epub 2016 Nov 2.
9
The Complexities of Doctor-Patient-Family Communication in an Asian Oncology Setting: Concordance and Discordance Among Patient Preferences, Family Preferences, and Perceived and Actual Communication.亚洲肿瘤学环境中医患家庭沟通的复杂性:患者偏好、家庭偏好、感知和实际沟通之间的一致性和不一致性。
Health Commun. 2018 Feb;33(2):95-101. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1239303. Epub 2016 Nov 30.
10
Patients With Limited Health Literacy Ask Fewer Questions During Office Visits With Hand Surgeons.健康素养有限的患者在手外科医生门诊就诊时提问较少。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 May;475(5):1291-1297. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5140-5. Epub 2016 Oct 28.

引用本文的文献

1
Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.《让数字有意义:健康领域概率沟通的循证综述》的范围、方法及概述性研究结果:一项系统综述
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255334. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255334. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
2
How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.点(单概率)任务如何受到概率格式的影响,第二部分:一项使数字有意义的系统综述。
MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Feb 24;10(1):23814683241255337. doi: 10.1177/23814683241255337. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Presenting Numeric Information with Percentages and Descriptive Risk Labels: A Randomized Trial.使用百分比和描述性风险标签呈现数值信息:一项随机试验。
Med Decis Making. 2015 Nov;35(8):937-47. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15584922. Epub 2015 May 7.
2
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.为面临健康治疗或筛查决策的人群提供的决策辅助工具。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
3
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.
Communicating certainty via verbal probability phrases: comparing health contexts with no context.
通过言语概率短语传达确定性:将健康情境与无情境进行比较。
BMC Prim Care. 2025 Jan 20;26(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s12875-024-02687-9.
4
How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.针对健康素养有限人群的患者决策辅助工具的包容性如何?对可理解性标准以及关于选项和概率的沟通的分析
Med Decis Making. 2025 Feb;45(2):143-155. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241302288. Epub 2024 Dec 14.
5
Perceived Provision of Perioperative Information and Care by Patients Who Have Undergone Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.患者对接受结直肠癌手术的围手术期信息和护理的感知:一项横断面研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 18;19(22):15249. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192215249.
6
Arrhythmias as Presentation of Genetic Cardiomyopathy.心律失常作为遗传性心肌病的表现。
Circ Res. 2022 May 27;130(11):1698-1722. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.122.319835. Epub 2022 May 26.
7
Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review.健康领域中言语概率解释的不精确性和偏好:系统评价。
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Dec;36(12):3820-3829. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07050-7. Epub 2021 Aug 6.
8
Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.向癌症患者传达治疗风险和获益:沟通方法的系统评价。
Qual Life Res. 2020 Jul;29(7):1747-1766. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02503-8. Epub 2020 Apr 24.
9
Personal factors influencing breast cancer patients' perception of breast conservation surgery in West China.影响中国西部乳腺癌患者对保乳手术认知的个人因素。
Ann Transl Med. 2019 Jul;7(14):313. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.06.43.
关于进行筛查测试的明智决策的个性化风险沟通。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;2013(2):CD001865. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub3.
4
Supporting shared decisions when clinical evidence is low.支持临床证据不足时的共同决策。
Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):113S-128S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712458456. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
5
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions.使用替代统计格式来呈现风险和风险降低情况。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;2011(3):CD006776. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2.
6
The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty.沟通在协作决策中的重要性:促进共享思维和不确定性管理。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):579-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01549.x. Epub 2010 Sep 12.
7
Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions.赋予数字意义:评价类别对决策的影响。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009 Sep;15(3):213-27. doi: 10.1037/a0016978.
8
Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication.让数字发挥作用:风险沟通领域的当前与未来研究
Am J Health Behav. 2007 Sep-Oct;31 Suppl 1:S47-56. doi: 10.5555/ajhb.2007.31.supp.S47.
9
Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses?将产前筛查测试结果标记为阴性或阳性会影响女性的反应吗?
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;197(5):528.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.076. Epub 2007 Sep 19.
10
Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations.传达健康风险的数字、文字和视觉形式:建议的最佳实践及未来建议。
Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):696-713. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07307271. Epub 2007 Sep 14.