• 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

患者决策辅助工具在经过严格评估后是否在临床实践中使用?一项对试验作者的调查。

Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors.

机构信息

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2019 Oct;39(7):805-815. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19868193. Epub 2019 Aug 17.

DOI:10.1177/0272989X19868193
PMID:31423911
Abstract

Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health care decisions, but there is little use in practice. Our study aimed to determine subsequent PtDA use in clinical practice following published randomized controlled trials. A descriptive study using an e-mail-embedded questionnaire survey targeting authors of 133 trials included in Cochrane Reviews of PtDAs (106 authors). We classified PtDA level of use as a) implementation, defined as integrating within care processes; b) dissemination to target users with planned strategies; and c) diffusion, defined as passive, unplanned spread. We conducted content analysis to identify barriers and enablers guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use. Ninety-eight authors responded (92.5%) on 108 trialed PtDAs. Reported levels of use were implementation ( = 29; 28%), dissemination to target user(s) ( = 9; 9%), and diffusion ( = 7; 7%); 57 (55%) reported no uptake, and 1 had no response (1%). Barriers to use in clinical practice were identified at the level of researchers (e.g., lack of posttrial plan), PtDAs (e.g., outdated, delivery mechanism), clinicians (e.g., disagreed with PtDA use), and practice environment (e.g., infrastructure support; funding). Enablers were online delivery, organizational endorsement (e.g., professional organization, charity, government), and design for and integration into the care process. Self-report bias and potential for recall bias. Only 44% of PtDA trial authors indicated some level of subsequent use following their trial. The most commonly reported barriers were lack of funding, outdated PtDAs, and clinician disagreement with PtDA use. To improve subsequent use, researchers should codesign PtDAs with end users to ensure fit with clinical practice and develop an implementation plan. National systems (e.g., platforms, endorsement, funding) can enable use.

摘要

患者决策辅助工具(PtDAs)是支持患者参与医疗保健决策的有效干预措施,但在实践中应用很少。我们的研究旨在确定在发表的随机对照试验后,临床实践中随后使用 PtDAs 的情况。这是一项描述性研究,使用电子邮件嵌入问卷调查了 Cochrane 患者决策辅助工具评价中 133 项试验的作者(106 名作者)。我们将 PtDA 的使用水平分为 a)实施,定义为整合到护理流程中;b)向目标用户传播,使用计划策略;c)扩散,定义为被动、无计划的传播。我们进行了内容分析,根据渥太华研究使用模型确定了障碍和促进因素。在 108 项试验的 PtDAs 中,98 名作者(92.5%)回复了报告。使用水平报告为实施(=29;28%)、向目标用户传播(=9;9%)和扩散(=7;7%);57 项(55%)报告没有采用,1 项没有回复(1%)。在临床实践中使用的障碍在研究人员(例如,缺乏试验后计划)、PtDAs(例如,过时、传递机制)、临床医生(例如,不同意使用 PtDA)和实践环境(例如,基础设施支持;资金)层面被确定。促进因素是在线交付、组织认可(例如,专业组织、慈善机构、政府)以及针对和整合到护理流程的设计。自我报告偏差和潜在的回忆偏差。只有 44%的 PtDA 试验作者在试验后表示进行了某种程度的后续使用。报告最多的障碍是缺乏资金、PtDAs 过时和临床医生不同意使用 PtDA。为了提高后续使用,研究人员应与最终用户共同设计 PtDAs,以确保其与临床实践相匹配,并制定实施计划。国家系统(例如,平台、认可、资金)可以实现使用。

相似文献

1
Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors.患者决策辅助工具在经过严格评估后是否在临床实践中使用?一项对试验作者的调查。
Med Decis Making. 2019 Oct;39(7):805-815. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19868193. Epub 2019 Aug 17.
2
Implementation of a patient decision aid for men with localized prostate cancer: evaluation of patient outcomes and practice variation.为局限性前列腺癌男性患者实施患者决策辅助工具:患者结局及实践差异评估
Implement Sci. 2016 Jul 2;11(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0451-1.
3
A Patient Decision Aid for Men With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Case Study of Natural Implementation Approaches.局部前列腺癌男性患者决策辅助工具:自然实施方法的对比案例研究。
Cancer Nurs. 2020 Jan/Feb;43(1):E10-E21. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000651.
4
Coaching and guidance with patient decision aids: A review of theoretical and empirical evidence.辅导和指导患者决策辅助工具:理论和实证证据的回顾。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S11. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
5
Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.解决患者决策辅助工具中的健康素养问题:国际患者决策辅助标准的最新进展。
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):848-869. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211011101. Epub 2021 May 29.
6
Is quality of life a suitable measure of patient decision aid effectiveness? Sub-analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.生活质量是否适合作为患者决策辅助工具效果的衡量标准?对 Cochrane 系统评价的亚组分析。
Qual Life Res. 2019 Mar;28(3):593-607. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2045-7. Epub 2018 Nov 13.
7
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).社会弱势群体患者决策辅助工具的系统评价和荟萃分析:国际患者决策辅助标准(IPDAS)更新。
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):870-896. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211020317. Epub 2021 Jun 21.
8
Observational study of the development and evaluation of a fertility preservation patient decision aid for teenage and adult women diagnosed with cancer: the Cancer, Fertility and Me research protocol.针对被诊断患有癌症的青少年及成年女性的生育力保存患者决策辅助工具的开发与评估的观察性研究:癌症、生育力与我研究方案
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 13;7(3):e013219. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013219.
9
Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions: a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision AIDS.决策辅导在帮助患者准备健康决策方面的作用:一项关于患者决策辅助工具试验中决策辅导的系统评价。
Med Decis Making. 2012 May-Jun;32(3):E22-33. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12443311. Epub 2012 Apr 13.
10
What does it take to have sustained use of decision aids? A programme evaluation for the Breast Cancer Initiative.要实现决策辅助工具的持续使用,需要什么?乳腺癌倡议的项目评估。
Health Expect. 2011 Mar;14 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):85-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00640.x.

引用本文的文献

1
Clinician Needs and Requirements for a Decision Aid Navigator: Qualitative Study.决策辅助导航工具的临床医生需求与要求:定性研究
JMIR Hum Factors. 2025 Aug 21;12:e69756. doi: 10.2196/69756.
2
Evaluating the feasibility of study methods for a future trial-based economic evaluation of a multistage shared decision-making program for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled pilot study.评估未来一项针对2型糖尿病多阶段共享决策项目基于试验的经济评估研究方法的可行性:一项整群随机对照试验性研究方案
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 5;20(8):e0300944. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300944. eCollection 2025.
3
Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening.
针对全人群癌症筛查的决策辅助工具原型快速共同开发流程
Med Decis Making. 2025 Oct;45(7):775-793. doi: 10.1177/0272989X251346894. Epub 2025 Jul 14.
4
AMPDECIDE amputation level patient decision aids: a feasibility study.AMPDECIDE截肢水平患者决策辅助工具:一项可行性研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):218. doi: 10.1186/s12911-025-03084-7.
5
General practitioners' perceptions on decision aids in healthcare: a qualitative study in Portugal.全科医生对医疗保健中决策辅助工具的看法:葡萄牙的一项定性研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025 Jun 2;25(1):202. doi: 10.1186/s12911-025-03044-1.
6
Ethical and Practical Considerations in Implementing Population-Based Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening.实施基于人群的生殖遗传携带者筛查中的伦理与实践考量
Genes (Basel). 2025 Mar 31;16(4):423. doi: 10.3390/genes16040423.
7
Development of a patient decision aid for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a patient-centered approach.2型糖尿病患者决策辅助工具的开发:以患者为中心的方法。
BMC Prim Care. 2025 Mar 22;26(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s12875-025-02772-7.
8
A decision aid is not the quick fix for improving shared decision-making in advanced Parkinson's disease: results of a mixed methods feasibility study.决策辅助工具并非改善晚期帕金森病共同决策的速效方法:一项混合方法可行性研究的结果
J Neurol. 2025 Mar 13;272(4):269. doi: 10.1007/s00415-025-12972-x.
9
Fostering Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Health Care Professionals in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Protocol for a Project to Develop and Test a Tool for Guideline Developers.在临床实践指南中促进患者和医疗保健专业人员之间的共享决策:为指南制定者开发和测试工具的项目的方案。
JMIR Res Protoc. 2024 Nov 4;13:e57611. doi: 10.2196/57611.
10
Do summaries of evidence enable informed decision-making about COVID-19 and influenza vaccination equitably across more and less disadvantaged groups? Study protocol for a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 'fact boxes' in health and social care in Germany.证据总结能否使更多和较少弱势群体在 COVID-19 和流感疫苗接种方面做出知情决策?德国卫生和社会保健中“事实框”的多中心整群随机对照试验研究方案。
BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 1;14(10):e083515. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083515.