• 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

患者与从业者对初级保健中癌症风险讨论的看法:一项定性研究。

Patient and practitioner views on cancer risk discussions in primary care: a qualitative study.

作者信息

Blane David N, MacDonald Sara, O'Donnell Catherine A

机构信息

General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

出版信息

BJGP Open. 2022 Mar 22;6(1). doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0108. Print 2022 Mar.

DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0108
PMID:34645652
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8958738/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that nearly 600 000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past 5 years if people had healthier lifestyles, with the principle modifiable risk factors being smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, and inactivity. There is growing interest in the use of cancer risk information in general practice to encourage lifestyle modification.

AIM

To explore the views and experiences of patients and practitioners in relation to cancer prevention and cancer risk discussions in general practice.

DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study among patients and practitioners in general practices in Glasgow, UK.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine practitioners (five GPs and four practice nurses, recruited purposively from practices based on list size and deprivation status), and 13 patients (aged 30-60 years, with two or more specified comorbidities).

RESULTS

Currently, cancer risk discussions focus on smoking and cancer, with links between alcohol and/or obesity and cancer rarely made. There was support for the use of the personalised cancer risk tool as an additional resource in primary care. Practitioners felt practice nurses were best placed to use it. Use in planned appointments (for example, chronic disease reviews) was preferred over opportunistic use. Concerns were expressed, however, about generating anxiety, time constraints, and widening inequalities.

CONCLUSION

Health behaviour change is complex and the provision of information alone is unlikely to have significant effects. Personalised risk tools may have a role, but important concerns about their use remain, particularly in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage.

摘要

背景

据估计,在过去5年中,如果人们拥有更健康的生活方式,英国近60万例癌症病例本可避免,主要的可改变风险因素包括吸烟、肥胖、饮酒和缺乏运动。在全科医疗中利用癌症风险信息来鼓励改变生活方式的兴趣日益浓厚。

目的

探讨患者和从业者对于全科医疗中癌症预防及癌症风险讨论的观点和经历。

设计与背景

对英国格拉斯哥全科医疗中的患者和从业者进行定性研究。

方法

对9名从业者(5名全科医生和4名执业护士,根据名单规模和贫困状况从医疗机构中有目的地招募)和13名患者(年龄在30至60岁之间,患有两种或更多特定合并症)进行半结构化访谈。

结果

目前,癌症风险讨论主要集中在吸烟与癌症上,很少提及酒精和/或肥胖与癌症之间的联系。大家支持将个性化癌症风险工具作为初级保健中的一种额外资源。从业者认为执业护士最适合使用该工具。相较于机会性使用,更倾向于在预约安排(如慢性病复查)中使用。然而,有人担心这会引发焦虑、造成时间限制并加剧不平等。

结论

健康行为改变很复杂,仅提供信息不太可能产生显著效果。个性化风险工具可能会发挥作用,但对其使用仍存在重要担忧,尤其是在社会经济劣势地区。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/76d8/8958738/c0717e370fdb/bjgpopen-6-0108-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/76d8/8958738/c0717e370fdb/bjgpopen-6-0108-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/76d8/8958738/c0717e370fdb/bjgpopen-6-0108-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Patient and practitioner views on cancer risk discussions in primary care: a qualitative study.患者与从业者对初级保健中癌症风险讨论的看法:一项定性研究。
BJGP Open. 2022 Mar 22;6(1). doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0108. Print 2022 Mar.
2
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.促进和支持社区中患有慢性身体疾病的成年人进行自我管理:对医患互动的有效性和意义的系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001.
3
Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals.将癌症风险信息纳入全科医疗:一项针对健康专业人员的焦点小组定性研究。
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Mar;67(656):e218-e226. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X689401. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
4
Responses to provision of personalised cancer risk information: a qualitative interview study with members of the public.公众对提供个性化癌症风险信息的反应:一项定性访谈研究。
BMC Public Health. 2017 Dec 22;17(1):977. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4985-1.
5
6
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.超越黑木树:影响澳大利亚地区、农村和偏远地区的健康研究问题的快速综述。
Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881.
7
Attitudes, norms and controls influencing lifestyle risk factor management in general practice.影响全科医疗中生活方式风险因素管理的态度、规范和控制措施。
BMC Fam Pract. 2009 Aug 26;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-59.
8
The Experience and Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners in Orthopaedic Settings: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.执业护士在骨科环境中的经验与成效:一项全面的系统评价
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(42 Suppl):1-22. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-249.
9
Implementing, embedding and integrating self-management support tools for people with long-term conditions in primary care nursing: a qualitative study.在初级护理中为慢性病患者实施、嵌入和整合自我管理支持工具:一项定性研究。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Aug;51(8):1103-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.11.008. Epub 2013 Nov 27.
10
Cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks using QRISK®2 and JBS3 risk calculators: the RICO qualitative and quantitative study.使用 QRISK®2 和 JBS3 风险计算器在国民保健制度健康检查中进行心血管疾病风险沟通: RICO 定性和定量研究。
Health Technol Assess. 2021 Aug;25(50):1-124. doi: 10.3310/hta25500.

引用本文的文献

1
Perceptions of cancer risk communication in individuals with overweight or obesity- a qualitative interview study.超重或肥胖个体对癌症风险沟通的认知——一项定性访谈研究
BMC Public Health. 2025 May 23;25(1):1900. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23056-w.
2
Exploring Public, Practitioner and Policymaker Perspectives of Unhealthy Lifestyle Factors in the Context of Socioeconomic Deprivation: A Qualitative Study.探究社会经济匮乏背景下公众、从业者和政策制定者对不良生活方式因素的看法:一项定性研究。
Health Expect. 2024 Oct;27(5):e70069. doi: 10.1111/hex.70069.

本文引用的文献

1
Remote by default general practice: must we, should we, dare we?默认情况下远程全科医疗:我们必须这样做吗?我们应该这样做吗?我们敢这样做吗?
Br J Gen Pract. 2021 Mar 26;71(705):149-150. doi: 10.3399/bjgp21X715313. Print 2021 Apr.
2
Incorporating a brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change into primary care: a multi-methods pilot study.将简短的个体化癌症风险评估干预措施纳入初级保健以促进行为改变:一项多方法试点研究。
BMC Public Health. 2021 Jan 23;21(1):205. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10210-3.
3
Development and usability testing of a very brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change in primary care using normalisation process theory.
利用规范化进程理论开发和测试用于个性化癌症风险评估的极简短干预措施,以促进初级保健中的行为改变。
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2020 Jan 14;21:e1. doi: 10.1017/S146342361900080X.
4
Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization.定性研究中的饱和度:探索其概念化与操作化
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. Epub 2017 Sep 14.
5
Do 'environmental bads' such as alcohol, fast food, tobacco, and gambling outlets cluster and co-locate in more deprived areas in Glasgow City, Scotland?在苏格兰格拉斯哥市,是否存在“环境不良因素”(如酒精、快餐、烟草和赌博场所)在贫困地区聚集和集中的现象?
Health Place. 2018 May;51:224-231. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.04.008. Epub 2018 May 7.
6
Moving beyond individual choice in policies to reduce health inequalities: the integration of dynamic with individual explanations.超越个人选择的政策,以减少健康不平等:动态与个人解释的综合。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Dec 1;40(4):764-775. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy045.
7
Stuff goes wrong, so act now.事情出了差错,所以现在就行动吧。
Behav Brain Sci. 2017 Jan;40:e340. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X17001091.
8
Can Communicating Personalised Disease Risk Promote Healthy Behaviour Change? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.传达个性化疾病风险能否促进健康行为改变?系统评价的系统综述
Ann Behav Med. 2017 Oct;51(5):718-729. doi: 10.1007/s12160-017-9895-z.
9
Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals.将癌症风险信息纳入全科医疗:一项针对健康专业人员的焦点小组定性研究。
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Mar;67(656):e218-e226. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X689401. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
10
The behavioural constellation of deprivation: Causes and consequences.剥夺的行为特征:原因与后果。
Behav Brain Sci. 2017 Jan;40:e314. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1600234X. Epub 2017 Jan 11.