• 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

卫生保健专业人员在筛查项目中实施共同决策的行为:系统评价。

Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review.

机构信息

Department of Economics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain; Centre de Recerca en Economia i Sostenibilitat (ECO-SOS), Spain.

Department of Economics, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain; Research Group on Statistics, Economic Evaluation and Health (GRAEES), Spain.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Aug;104(8):1933-1944. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.032. Epub 2021 Jan 30.

DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.032
PMID:33581968
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals' implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals' behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.

摘要

目的

探索医疗保健专业人员在实施有关筛查计划的决策支持时的障碍和促进因素。

方法

在 PubMed、Cochrane Library、CINHAL 和 PsycInfo 中进行了系统评价。根据来源,将确定的障碍和促进因素分为三个因素:患者、医疗系统绩效和医疗保健专业人员自身。

结果

共选择了 8 项研究:其中 7 项与癌症筛查有关。最重要的促进因素是对积极参与的文化程度和兴趣,这两者都源于患者。在系统评价中首次确定的最重要障碍是法律冲突、筛查计划中缺乏报酬和临床指南缺乏灵活性。

结论

本研究结果表明,在涉及健康人进行预防活动(特别是筛查)的情况下,SDM 的障碍和促进因素存在差异,与一般医疗咨询背景不同。

实用意义

作者建议,为了推进决策支持的实践,我们需要制定和传播培训文件。此外,应将决策支持纳入临床指南。应该有更多的研究关注医疗保健专业人员在筛查计划不确定性背景下的行为。

相似文献

1
Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review.卫生保健专业人员在筛查项目中实施共同决策的行为:系统评价。
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Aug;104(8):1933-1944. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.032. Epub 2021 Jan 30.
2
Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.心理健康问题患者的共同决策干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 11;11(11):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub3.
3
Shared decision-making in the treatment of adolescents diagnosed with depression: A cross-sectional survey of mental health professionals in China.中国青少年抑郁症治疗中的共享决策:精神卫生专业人员的横断面调查。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2024 Jun;31(3):340-351. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12990. Epub 2023 Oct 26.
4
Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.提高医疗保健专业人员共同决策使用率的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 19;7(7):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4.
5
Community views on mass drug administration for soil-transmitted helminths: a qualitative evidence synthesis.社区对土壤传播蠕虫群体药物给药的看法:定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 20;6:CD015794. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015794.pub2.
6
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
7
Perspectives of clinicians and screening candidates on shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a qualitative study (PROSHADE study).临床医生和筛查参与者对前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测用于前列腺癌筛查的共同决策的看法:一项定性研究(PROSHADE研究)
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 May 20;30(3):163-172. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113113.
8
Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review.医院中从政策到实践的共享决策的障碍和促进因素:系统评价。
Implement Sci. 2021 Jul 31;16(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y.
9
Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model.探索在临床实践中实施共享决策的动机和阻力:基于结构-过程-结果模型的系统评价。
Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1254-1268. doi: 10.1111/hex.13541. Epub 2022 Jun 5.
10
Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials.随机对照试验中参与者和专业人员偏好影响的概念框架与系统评价
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Sep;9(35):1-186, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta9350.

引用本文的文献

1
A Brief Web-Based Person-Centered Care Group Training Program for the Management of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial in Spain.一项基于网络的以患者为中心的广泛性焦虑障碍管理小组培训简短项目:西班牙的可行性随机对照试验
JMIR Med Educ. 2025 Jan 16;11:e50060. doi: 10.2196/50060.
2
A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners.系统评价全科医生共享决策培训方案。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 May 29;24(1):592. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05557-1.
3
Shared Decision-Making During Virtual Care Regarding Rheumatologic and Chronic Conditions: Qualitative Study of Benefits, Pitfalls, and Optimization.
虚拟医疗中关于风湿性和慢性疾病的共同决策:益处、陷阱与优化的定性研究
ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 Jan;6(1):32-42. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11633. Epub 2023 Nov 15.
4
Dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's knowledge translation efforts.临床实践指南的传播与实施:对加拿大预防保健特别工作组知识转化工作的纵向混合方法评估
CMAJ Open. 2023 Aug 8;11(4):E684-E695. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20220121. Print 2023 Jul-Aug.
5
Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies.在欧洲实施有组织的结直肠癌筛查计划——系统评价决定因素和策略的方案。
Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 27;12(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02193-6.
6
Women's preference to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.女性在乳腺癌筛查中倾向于采用共同决策:一项离散选择实验。
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 8;12(11):e064488. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064488.
7
[Moving toward personalized breast cancer screening: The role of Primary Care].迈向个性化乳腺癌筛查:初级保健的作用
Aten Primaria. 2022 May;54(5):102288. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2022.102288. Epub 2022 Apr 25.
8
Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals.实施个性化乳腺癌筛查计划的障碍和促进因素:西班牙卫生专业人员的观点。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 27;19(3):1406. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031406.
9
Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study.卫生专业人员对基于风险的乳腺癌筛查及其在西班牙国家卫生系统中的实施的看法:定性讨论组研究。
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 4;17(2):e0263788. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263788. eCollection 2022.
10
Development of support material for health professionals who are implementing Shared Decision-making in breast cancer screening: validation using the Delphi technique.为实施乳腺癌筛查中共享决策的卫生专业人员开发支持材料:使用德尔菲技术进行验证。
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 1;12(2):e052566. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052566.