• 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
How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?家庭医学教学诊所中共享决策的这两个核心能力出现的频率是多少?
Can Fam Physician. 2019 Feb;65(2):e64-e75.
2
Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options.临床医生因素而非患者因素影响治疗方案的讨论。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Jul 1;479(7):1506-1516. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001664.
3
Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices.观察者对共享决策的评估与患者报告不符:5 家家庭医学实践中的观察性研究。
Med Decis Making. 2021 Jan;41(1):51-59. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20977885.
4
Preferences on Treatment Decision Making in Sarcoma Patients: Prevalence and Associated Factors - Results from the PROSa Study.肉瘤患者治疗决策的偏好:患病率及相关因素——PROSa研究结果
Oncol Res Treat. 2025;48(4):174-185. doi: 10.1159/000543456. Epub 2025 Jan 15.
5
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
6
Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice.基于患者的结局,来自一项在全科医疗中开展的关于共同决策技能培养及风险沟通辅助工具使用的整群随机试验。
Fam Pract. 2004 Aug;21(4):347-54. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh402.
7
Facilitating participatory decision-making: what happens in real-world community practice?促进参与式决策:现实世界中的社区实践会发生什么?
Med Care. 2000 Dec;38(12):1200-9. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200012000-00007.
8
Family medicine residents' perspectives on shared decision-making: A mixed methods study.家庭医学住院医师对共同决策的看法:一项混合方法研究。
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Nov;128:108373. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108373. Epub 2024 Jul 14.
9
Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results.类风湿关节炎护理中的患者报告结局可改善患者沟通、决策、满意度和信心:定性结果。
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020 Jul 1;59(7):1662-1670. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez506.
10
Perspectives of family physician educators on shared decision making in preventive health care: A Qualitative Descriptive Inquiry.家庭医生教育工作者对预防性医疗保健中共同决策的看法:一项定性描述性调查。
Patient Educ Couns. 2025 May;134:108681. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2025.108681. Epub 2025 Jan 25.

引用本文的文献

1
[Not Available].[无可用内容]。
Can Fam Physician. 2019 Aug;65(8):e329-e335.
2
Age to stop? Appropriate screening in older patients.何时停止?老年患者的适当筛查。
Can Fam Physician. 2019 Aug;65(8):543-548.

本文引用的文献

1
An evaluation of two interventions to enhance patient-physician communication using the observer OPTION measure of shared decision making.评价两种使用观察者 OPTION 共享决策测量工具来增强医患沟通的干预措施。
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Oct;100(10):1910-1917. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.04.020. Epub 2017 May 1.
2
Making patient values visible in healthcare: a systematic review of tools to assess patient treatment priorities and preferences in the context of multimorbidity.使患者价值观在医疗保健中可见:评估多病共存背景下患者治疗优先级和偏好的工具的系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 10;6(6):e010903. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010903.
3
Communication skills of tutors and family medicine physician residents in Primary Care clinics.基层医疗诊所中带教老师与家庭医学住院医师的沟通技巧
Aten Primaria. 2016 Dec;48(10):632-641. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2015.12.002. Epub 2016 May 5.
4
Effects of Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods: A Systematic Review.明确价值观澄清方法的设计特征之影响:一项系统综述
Med Decis Making. 2016 Aug;36(6):760-76. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16634085. Epub 2016 Apr 4.
5
Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods: A Systematic Review.明确价值观澄清方法的设计特点:一项系统综述。
Med Decis Making. 2016 May;36(4):453-71. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15626397. Epub 2016 Jan 29.
6
OPTION(5) versus OPTION(12) instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making.比较选项(5)和选项(12)的手段,以了解医疗保健提供者让患者参与决策的程度。
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jun;99(6):1062-8. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.019. Epub 2015 Dec 30.
7
Case Management in Primary Care for Frequent Users of Health Care Services With Chronic Diseases: A Qualitative Study of Patient and Family Experience.慢性病医疗服务频繁使用者的基层医疗病例管理:患者及家庭体验的定性研究
Ann Fam Med. 2015 Nov;13(6):523-8. doi: 10.1370/afm.1867.
8
Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices.过度诊断的影响:对乳腺钼靶筛查实践的影响。
Popul Health Manag. 2015 Sep;18 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S3-11. doi: 10.1089/pop.2015.29023.mor.
9
The myth of standardized workflow in primary care.初级医疗中标准化工作流程的神话。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jan;23(1):29-37. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv107. Epub 2015 Sep 2.
10
Providers contextualise care more often when they discover patient context by asking: meta-analysis of three primary data sets.提供者通过询问患者背景来更经常地了解患者情况,从而使医疗更具针对性:三个原始数据集的荟萃分析。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Mar;25(3):159-63. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004283. Epub 2015 Jul 22.

家庭医学教学诊所中共享决策的这两个核心能力出现的频率是多少?

How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?

机构信息

Clinical research coordinator at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Que.

Research associate in the Research Unit of the Office of Education and Professional Development at Laval University in Quebec city, Que.

出版信息

Can Fam Physician. 2019 Feb;65(2):e64-e75.

PMID:30765371
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6515489/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess how often risk communication and values clarification occur in routine family medicine practice and to explore factors associated with their occurrence.

DESIGN

Qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Five university-affiliated family medicine teaching clinics across Quebec.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-one health professionals (55% physicians, 35% residents, 10% nurses or dietitians) and 238 patients (76% women; age range 16 to 82 years old).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The presence or absence of risk communication and values clarification during visits in which decisions were made was determined. Factors associated with the primary outcome (both competencies together) were identified. The OPTION5 (observing patient involvement in decision making) instrument was used to validate the dichotomous outcome.

RESULTS

The presence of risk communication and values clarification during visits was associated with OPTION5 scores (area under the curve of 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86, < .001). Both core competencies of shared decision making occurred in 150 of 238 (63%) visits (95% CI 54% to 70%). Such an occurrence was more likely when the visit included discussion about beginning something new, treatment options, or postponing a decision, as well as when health professionals preferred a collaborative decision-making style and when the visit included more decisions or was longer. Alone, risk communication occurred in 203 of 238 (85%) visits (95% CI 82% to 96%) and values clarification in 162 of 238 (68%) visits (95% CI 61% to 75%).

CONCLUSION

Health professionals in family medicine are making an effort to engage patients in shared decision making in routine daily practice, especially when there is time to do so. The greatest potential for improvement might lie in values clarification; that is, discussing what matters to patients and families.

摘要

目的

评估风险沟通和价值观澄清在常规家庭医学实践中出现的频率,并探讨与其发生相关的因素。

设计

定性和定量的横断面研究。

地点

魁北克五所大学附属医院的家庭医学教学诊所。

参与者

71 名卫生专业人员(55%为医生,35%为住院医师,10%为护士或营养师)和 238 名患者(76%为女性;年龄 16 至 82 岁)。

主要结果测量

确定在做出决策的就诊过程中是否存在风险沟通和价值观澄清。确定与主要结局(两种能力均包括)相关的因素。使用 OPTION5(观察患者参与决策的程度)工具验证二分结局。

结果

就诊过程中存在风险沟通和价值观澄清与 OPTION5 评分相关(曲线下面积为 0.80,95%CI 为 0.75 至 0.86, <.001)。238 次就诊中有 150 次(63%,95%CI 为 54%至 70%)同时存在共享决策的两个核心能力。当就诊包括讨论开始新事物、治疗选择或推迟决策时,当卫生专业人员更喜欢合作决策风格且就诊包含更多决策或更长时,这种情况更有可能发生。单独来看,风险沟通发生在 238 次就诊中的 203 次(85%,95%CI 为 82%至 96%),价值观澄清发生在 238 次就诊中的 162 次(68%,95%CI 为 61%至 75%)。

结论

家庭医学中的卫生专业人员正在努力在日常常规实践中让患者参与共享决策,尤其是在有时间这样做的情况下。改进的最大潜力可能在于价值观澄清,即讨论对患者和家属重要的事情。