Suppr超能文献

公开可用的交互式网络工具以支持预先护理计划:系统评价。

Publicly Available, Interactive Web-Based Tools to Support Advance Care Planning: Systematic Review.

机构信息

End-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel & Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium.

Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2022 Apr 20;24(4):e33320. doi: 10.2196/33320.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated.

METHODS

We systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28-a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables.

RESULTS

A total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43.

摘要

背景

互动式网络预先医疗指示支持工具的数量正在增加,这些工具是任何格式的网络辅助工具,鼓励反思、沟通和处理公开信息,其中大多数信息无法在同行评议的文献中找到。

目的

本研究旨在对网络预先医疗指示支持工具进行系统评价,描述其特征、可读性和内容质量,并调查它们是否以及如何进行评估。

方法

我们系统地搜索了网络灰色文献数据库 OpenGrey、ClinicalTrials.gov、ProQuest、大英图书馆、荷兰灰色文献、卫生服务研究项目进展,以及谷歌和应用商店,并通过以下纳入标准咨询了专家:基于网络、面向普通人群、人人都可获取、互动式(鼓励反思、沟通和信息处理)以及英文或荷兰文。使用质量评估评分工具(得分 0-28-得分越高表示质量越好)评估内容质量。为了综合预先医疗指示工具的特征、内容的可读性和质量,以及它们是否以及如何进行评估,我们使用了 4 个数据提取表。

结果

共有 30 种工具符合纳入标准,包括 15 种(50%)网站、10 种(33%)基于网络的门户、3 种(10%)应用程序和 2 种(7%)具有多种格式。在 30 种工具中,有 24 种(80%)提到了明确的目标,包括 7 种(23%)支持反思或沟通、8 种(27%)支持人们做出决策、7 种(23%)提供支持以记录决策以及 2 种(7%)旨在实现所有这些目标。在 30 种工具中,有 7 种(23%)提供了关于开发的信息,所有这些信息都与医疗保健专业人员合作开发,其中 3 种(10%)与最终用户合作开发。质量评分在 11 到 28 之间,大多数得分较低的工具都没有引用信息来源。

结论

网络上有各种各样的预先医疗指示支持工具,内容质量参差不齐。未来,应该让用户参与预先医疗指示支持工具的开发过程,并且内容应该以科学证据为依据。

注册

PROSPERO CRD42020184112;https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/66a9/9069298/dbc02756a9b0/jmir_v24i4e33320_fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验