• 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
Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of encounter decision aids in breast cancer care.适应和定性评估在乳腺癌护理中的相遇决策辅助工具。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;299(4):1141-1149. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-5035-7. Epub 2019 Jan 16.
2
"Provoking conversations": case studies of organizations where Option Grid™ decision aids have become 'normalized'.“引发对话”:关于Option Grid™决策辅助工具已实现“常态化”的组织的案例研究
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Aug 18;17(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0517-2.
3
Exploring the use of Option Grid™ patient decision aids in a sample of clinics in Poland.在波兰的一组诊所中探索使用Option Grid™患者决策辅助工具。
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 Jul;134:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2018.04.002. Epub 2018 May 29.
4
Assessing the acceptability and feasibility of encounter decision aids for early stage breast cancer targeted at underserved patients.评估针对医疗服务不足患者的早期乳腺癌诊疗决策辅助工具的可接受性和可行性。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Nov 21;16(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0384-2.
5
'Much clearer with pictures': using community-based participatory research to design and test a Picture Option Grid for underserved patients with breast cancer.“有了图片更清楚”:利用社区参与式研究为服务欠缺的乳腺癌患者设计和测试图片选择网格。
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 2;6(2):e010008. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010008.
6
Implementation and sustainability factors of two early-stage breast cancer conversation aids in diverse practices.两种早期乳腺癌对话辅助工具在不同实践中的实施和可持续性因素。
Implement Sci. 2021 May 10;16(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01115-1.
7
How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice.癌症护理中的决策是如何做出的?一项通过对当前实践进行参与观察的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e016360. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016360.
8
An evaluation of oncofertility decision support resources among breast cancer patients and health care providers.一项针对乳腺癌患者和医疗服务提供者的肿瘤生育力决策支持资源评估。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Feb 6;19(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-3901-z.
9
Acceptance of shared decision making with reference to an electronic library of decision aids (arriba-lib) and its association to decision making in patients: an evaluation study.接受参考电子决策辅助库(arriba-lib)的共享决策及其与患者决策的关联:一项评估研究。
Implement Sci. 2011 Jul 7;6:70. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-70.
10
Investigation of factors influencing the implementation of two shared decision-making interventions in contraceptive care: a qualitative interview study among clinical and administrative staff.调查影响避孕护理中两种共享决策干预措施实施的因素:一项针对临床和行政人员的定性访谈研究。
Implement Sci. 2019 Nov 9;14(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0941-z.

引用本文的文献

1
Development and pilot testing of the Population And ContExt adaption of decision aids (PACE) framework.决策辅助工具的人群与背景适应性(PACE)框架的开发与试点测试
PEC Innov. 2024 Sep 30;5:100347. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100347. eCollection 2024 Dec 15.
2
Adaptation and Implementation of Pictorial Conversation Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction: A Quality Improvement Study.早期乳腺癌手术及重建中图片交流辅助工具的适配与应用:一项质量改进研究
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023 Oct 4;17:2463-2474. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S421695. eCollection 2023.
3
Implementing shared decision-making interventions in breast cancer clinical practice: a scoping review.在乳腺癌临床实践中实施共同决策干预措施:范围综述。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023 Aug 23;23(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02263-8.
4
Experiences of Using Patient Decision Aids for Decisions About Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Aggregation of Qualitative Studies.使用患者决策辅助工具进行癌症治疗决策的经验:定性研究的元聚合
Cancer Nurs. 2025;48(2):81-88. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000001263. Epub 2023 Jul 11.
5
Acceptability and perceived feasibility of adapted encounter decision aids on contraceptive methods: An interview study with healthcare providers and Chinese migrant women.适应性避孕方法就诊决策辅助工具的可接受性和感知可行性:一项针对医疗服务提供者和中国流动妇女的访谈研究
PEC Innov. 2022 Mar 23;1:100031. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100031. eCollection 2022 Dec.
6
Patient Perceptions of a Decision Support Tool for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer.局限性前列腺癌男性患者对决策支持工具的认知
MDM Policy Pract. 2023 Mar 11;8(1):23814683231156427. doi: 10.1177/23814683231156427. eCollection 2023 Jan-Jun.
7
Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences.医患决策辅助工具对医患对话的潜在影响:荷兰和美国医学专家经验的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 1;12(2):e048146. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048146.
8
Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.系统开发患者决策辅助工具:来自 IPDAS 合作组织的最新更新。
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):736-754. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211014163. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
9
Factors influencing implementation of an insulin patient decision aid at public health clinics in Malaysia: A qualitative study.影响马来西亚公共卫生诊所胰岛素患者决策辅助工具实施的因素:一项定性研究。
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 30;15(12):e0244645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244645. eCollection 2020.
10
Translation and cultural adaptation of a prostate cancer screening decision aid: a qualitative study in Portugal.前列腺癌筛查决策辅助工具的翻译和文化调适:葡萄牙的一项定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 25;10(3):e034384. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034384.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: study protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.评估癌症护理中常规实施共享决策的方案:一项阶梯式楔形集群随机试验的研究方案。
Implement Sci. 2018 Mar 27;13(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0740-y.
2
How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice.癌症护理中的决策是如何做出的?一项通过对当前实践进行参与观察的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e016360. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016360.
3
The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany.在德国实施以患者为中心的护理和共同决策的漫长道路。
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Jun;123-124:46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 22.
4
Shared decision making in 2017: International accomplishments in policy, research and implementation.2017年的共同决策:政策、研究与实施方面的国际成就。
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Jun;123-124:1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.024. Epub 2017 May 23.
5
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.
6
Cancer patients' control preferences in decision making and associations with patient-reported outcomes: a prospective study in an outpatient cancer center.癌症患者在决策中的控制偏好及其与患者报告结局的关联:一项在门诊癌症中心进行的前瞻性研究。
Support Care Cancer. 2017 Sep;25(9):2753-2760. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3686-8. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
7
Supporting shared decision making using an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee in an interface musculoskeletal clinic: A stepped wedge trial.在界面肌肉骨骼诊所使用选项网格支持膝骨关节炎的共同决策:一项阶梯楔形试验。
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Apr;99(4):571-577. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.011. Epub 2015 Oct 30.
8
In Absentia: An Exploratory Study of How Patients Are Considered in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings.缺席之境:关于多学科癌症团队会议中患者考量方式的探索性研究
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 6;10(10):e0139921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139921. eCollection 2015.
9
Using Option Grids: steps toward shared decision-making for neonatal circumcision.使用选项网格:迈向新生儿包皮环切术共同决策的步骤
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Feb;99(2):236-42. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.025. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
10
Assessing Option Grid® practicability and feasibility for facilitating shared decision making: An exploratory study.评估Option Grid®在促进共同决策方面的实用性和可行性:一项探索性研究。
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jul;98(7):871-7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.013. Epub 2015 Mar 23.

适应和定性评估在乳腺癌护理中的相遇决策辅助工具。

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of encounter decision aids in breast cancer care.

机构信息

Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Department of Gynecology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

出版信息

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Apr;299(4):1141-1149. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-5035-7. Epub 2019 Jan 16.

DOI:10.1007/s00404-018-5035-7
PMID:30649604
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6435605/
Abstract

PURPOSE

Shared decision-making is currently not widely implemented in breast cancer care. Encounter decision aids support shared decision-making by helping patients and physicians compare treatment options. So far, little was known about adaptation needs for translated encounter decision aids, and encounter decision aids for breast cancer treatments were not available in Germany. This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the implementation of two encounter decision aids on breast cancer treatments in routine care.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study: (1) translation of two breast cancer Option Grid™ decision aids; comparison to national clinical standards; cognitive interviews to test patients' understanding; (2) focus groups to assess acceptability; (3) testing in routine care using participant observation. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Physicians and patients reacted positively to the idea of encounter decision aids, and reported being interested in using them; patients were most receptive. Several adaptation cycles were necessary. Uncertainty about feasibility of using encounter decision aids in clinical settings was the main physician-reported barrier. During real-world testing (N = 77 encounters), physicians used encounter decision aids in one-third of potentially relevant encounters. However, they did not use the encounter decision aids to stimulate dialogue, which is contrary to their original scope and purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

The idea of using encounter decision aids was welcomed, but more by patients than by physicians. Adaptation was a complex process and required resources. Clinicians did not follow suggested strategies for using encounter decision aids. Our study indicates that production of encounter decision aids alone will not lead to successful implementation, and has to be accompanied by training of health care providers.

摘要

目的

目前,在乳腺癌护理中,共同决策并未得到广泛实施。医患会谈决策辅助工具通过帮助患者和医生比较治疗方案来支持共同决策。到目前为止,对于翻译后的医患会谈决策辅助工具的适应需求知之甚少,并且德国还没有用于乳腺癌治疗的医患会谈决策辅助工具。本研究旨在调整并评估两种用于常规护理中乳腺癌治疗的医患会谈决策辅助工具的实施情况。

方法

我们进行了一个多阶段的定性研究:(1)翻译两种乳腺癌 Option Grid 决策辅助工具;与国家临床标准进行比较;进行认知访谈以测试患者的理解能力;(2)进行焦点小组讨论以评估可接受性;(3)使用参与者观察在常规护理中进行测试。使用定性内容分析对数据进行分析。

结果

医生和患者对医患会谈决策辅助工具的想法反应积极,并表示有兴趣使用;患者的接受程度最高。需要进行多个适应周期。在临床环境中使用医患会谈决策辅助工具的可行性存在不确定性,这是医生报告的主要障碍。在真实世界的测试中(N=77 次就诊),医生在三分之一可能相关的就诊中使用了医患会谈决策辅助工具。然而,他们并没有利用医患会谈决策辅助工具来激发对话,这与它们的原始范围和目的相悖。

结论

使用医患会谈决策辅助工具的想法受到了欢迎,但更多的是患者而不是医生。适应是一个复杂的过程,需要资源。临床医生没有遵循使用医患会谈决策辅助工具的建议策略。我们的研究表明,仅制作医患会谈决策辅助工具不会导致成功实施,还必须伴随着医疗保健提供者的培训。