• 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

Measuring what really matters: Screening in primary care.

作者信息

Bell Neil R, Thériault Guylène, Singh Harminder, Grad Roland

机构信息

Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

Associate Vice Dean of Distributed Medical Education and Academic Lead for the Physicianship Component at Outaouais Medical Campus in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Que.

出版信息

Can Fam Physician. 2019 Nov;65(11):790-795.

PMID:31722909
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6853363/
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
Measuring what really matters: Screening in primary care.衡量真正重要的事物：基层医疗中的筛查
Can Fam Physician. 2019 Nov;65(11):790-795.
2
Care Consistency With Documented Care Preferences: Methodologic Considerations for Implementing the "Measuring What Matters" Quality Indicator.与记录的护理偏好的护理一致性：实施“衡量重要事项”质量指标的方法学考量
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016 Oct;52(4):453-458. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.04.015. Epub 2016 Sep 24.
3
The Implementation of Measuring What Matters in Research and Practice: Series Commentary.衡量研究与实践中重要事项的实施：系列述评。
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Nov;54(5):772-775. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.07.030. Epub 2017 Jul 17.
4
Signposts along the journey toward high-quality palliative care: the value of measuring what matters.通往高质量姑息治疗之路的路标：衡量重要事项的价值
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 May;49(5):e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.03.002. Epub 2015 Mar 28.
5
Adherence to Measuring What Matters: Description of an Inpatient Palliative Care Service of an Urban Teaching Hospital.坚持测量重要事项：城市教学医院姑息治疗服务的描述。
J Palliat Med. 2019 Jan;22(1):75-79. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0182. Epub 2018 Aug 21.
6
Differences in primary palliative care between people with organ failure and people with cancer: An international mortality follow-back study using quality indicators.器官衰竭患者与癌症患者初级姑息治疗的差异：使用质量指标的国际死亡率回溯研究。
Palliat Med. 2018 Oct;32(9):1498-1508. doi: 10.1177/0269216318790386. Epub 2018 Jul 30.
7
Maintaining the Momentum of Measuring What Matters: Overcoming Hurdles To Develop Electronic Clinical Quality Measures.保持衡量关键指标的动力：克服开发电子临床质量指标的障碍。
J Palliat Med. 2018 Feb;21(2):123-124. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2017.0515. Epub 2017 Oct 24.
8
National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care: Clinical Practice Guidelines for quality palliative care, executive summary.国家姑息治疗质量共识项目：优质姑息治疗临床实践指南，执行摘要
J Palliat Med. 2004 Oct;7(5):611-27. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2004.7.611.
9
Quality of primary palliative care for older people with mild and severe dementia: an international mortality follow-back study using quality indicators.轻度和重度痴呆老年人的初级姑息治疗质量：使用质量指标进行的国际死亡率随访研究。
Age Ageing. 2018 Nov 1;47(6):824-833. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy087.
10
Development of Quality Indicators to Address Abuse and Neglect in Home-Based Primary Care and Palliative Care.制定质量指标以应对居家初级保健和姑息治疗中的虐待与忽视问题。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Dec;64(12):2577-2584. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14365. Epub 2016 Oct 27.

引用本文的文献

1
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
Can Fam Physician. 2022 Dec;68(12):882-884. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6812882.
2
Screening backlogs: How to move forward.筛查积压：如何向前推进。
Can Fam Physician. 2022 Dec;68(12):880-881. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6812880.
3
What should educators teach to improve preventive health care?教育工作者应该教些什么来改善预防性医疗保健？
Can Fam Physician. 2022 Aug;68(8):583-588. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6808583.
4
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
Can Fam Physician. 2022 Aug;68(8):e241-e247. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6808e241.
5
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
Can Fam Physician. 2021 Feb;67(2):e48-e55. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6702e48.
6
Too soon or too late? Choosing the right screening test intervals.太早还是太晚？选择合适的筛查测试间隔时间。
Can Fam Physician. 2021 Feb;67(2):100-106. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6702100.
7
Successes, lessons and opportunities: 15-year follow-up of an integrated evidence-based medicine curriculum.成功经验、教训与机遇：综合循证医学课程 15 年随访结果
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Oct;26(5):241-245. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111393. Epub 2020 Dec 21.
8
Balancing breast cancer screening limitations.平衡乳腺癌筛查的局限性
Can Fam Physician. 2020 Mar;66(3):164-165.

本文引用的文献

1
Decisional Conflict Scale Findings among Patients and Surrogates Making Health Decisions: Part II of an Anniversary Review.决策冲突量表在患者和代理人进行健康决策中的应用：周年回顾的第二部分。
Med Decis Making. 2019 May;39(4):315-326. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19851346. Epub 2019 May 29.
2
Validity and reliability of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in a national survey in Hungary.匈牙利全国性调查中 9 项共享决策问卷（SDM-Q-9）的有效性和可靠性。
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Jun;20(Suppl 1):43-55. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01061-2. Epub 2019 May 20.
3
Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.筛查过程的质量：一个被忽视的关键因素以及筛查共同决策的重要组成部分。
Can Fam Physician. 2019 May;65(5):331-336.
4
Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.系统综述：女性对乳腺癌筛查和诊断服务的价值观和偏好
Psychooncology. 2019 May;28(5):939-947. doi: 10.1002/pon.5041. Epub 2019 Mar 24.
5
Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: Their origins, spread, effectiveness and lacunae- A scoping review.质量圈在基层医疗质量改进中的应用：起源、传播、效果及缺陷——范围综述。
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 17;13(12):e0202616. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202616. eCollection 2018.
6
Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.针对乳腺癌风险未增加的40至74岁女性乳腺癌筛查的建议。
CMAJ. 2018 Dec 10;190(49):E1441-E1451. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.180463.
7
A systematic review of questionnaires about patient's values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines.关于临床实践指南中患者价值观和偏好问卷的系统评价。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Nov 2;12:2309-2323. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S177540. eCollection 2018.
8
Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.男性对前列腺特异性抗原筛查前列腺癌的价值观和偏好：系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 5;8(9):e025470. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025470.
9
Shared decision is the only outcome that matters when it comes to evaluating evidence-based practice.在评估循证实践时，共同决策是唯一重要的结果。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018 Aug;23(4):137-139. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110922. Epub 2018 Jul 12.
10
Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift.研究卫生服务研究中的复杂性：迫切需要一场姗姗来迟的范式转变。
BMC Med. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1089-4.