文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

随机试验选择明智的消费者问题和一个共享决策视频干预对决策结果。

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Wiser Healthcare, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2023 Aug;43(6):642-655. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231184461. Epub 2023 Jul 5.


DOI:10.1177/0272989X231184461
PMID:37403779
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10422858/
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM. RESULTS: A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44,  < 0.001,  = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32;  < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all  < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all  < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all  < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR376477. HIGHLIGHTS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

摘要

背景:尽管广泛使用,但很少有研究评估消费者明智选择问题。

方法:我们评估了明智选择问题对消费者决策结果的影响。居住在澳大利亚的成年人被提供了一个低价值护理方案的假设情景。使用 2×2×2 组间因子设计,他们被随机分配到明智选择问题(“问题”)、共享决策(SDM)准备视频(“视频”)、两种干预措施或对照组(无干预)。主要结果是 1)提问和参与决策的自我效能感,2)参与 SDM 的意愿。

结果:共有 1439 名符合条件的参与者(45.6%的人有“不足”的健康素养)纳入分析。与对照组相比,被分配到视频组的人(平均差异[MD]=0.24[范围 0-6],95%置信区间[CI]:0.14,0.35)、问题组(MD=0.12,95% CI:0.01,0.22)和两个干预组(MD=0.33,95% CI:0.23-0.44,  < 0.001,  = 0.28)参与 SDM 的意愿更高。与单独呈现问题相比,联合干预的效果更大(MD=0.22,95% CI:0.11,0.32;  < 0.001)。与对照组相比,接受视频或两种干预的人表示不太愿意在没有进一步询问的情况下遵循低价值治疗方案(均  < 0.05),并且对 SDM 的态度更加积极(均  < 0.05)。所有研究组的干预措施接受度都很高(>80%),但主动参与度较低(1.7%-20.8%)。与对照组相比,接受一种或两种干预的参与者提出了更多与明智选择问题相匹配的问题(均  < 0.001)。两种干预措施都没有对自我效能或知识产生主要影响。

结论:明智选择问题和促进 SDM 的视频可能会提高参与 SDM 的意愿,并支持患者识别与明智选择活动相匹配的问题(视频干预还有一些额外的好处)。

试验注册:ANZCTR376477。

重点:我们在澳大利亚进行了一项在线随机对照试验,以测试消费者明智选择问题和共享决策(SDM)准备视频的有效性。两种干预措施都提高了参与 SDM 的意愿,并支持参与者识别与明智选择活动相匹配的问题。视频干预在减少对低价值治疗的接受意愿方面还有一些额外的好处,即在没有提问的情况下接受腰痛治疗,但两种干预措施都没有改变参与者提问和参与决策的自我效能感,也没有影响他们对参与 SDM 的准备程度或对参与医疗保健决策的权利的看法。干预措施简单、低成本的性质可能使它们适合在解决低价值医疗保健问题的一整套方法中实施。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/169b/10422858/9baeabc5343e/10.1177_0272989X231184461-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/169b/10422858/cc6ea940e008/10.1177_0272989X231184461-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/169b/10422858/9baeabc5343e/10.1177_0272989X231184461-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/169b/10422858/cc6ea940e008/10.1177_0272989X231184461-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/169b/10422858/9baeabc5343e/10.1177_0272989X231184461-fig2.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.

Med Decis Making. 2023-8

[2]
Evaluation of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a shared decision-making preparation video: protocol for an online experiment.

BMJ Open. 2019-11-14

[3]
Equity in Choosing Wisely and beyond: the effect of health literacy on healthcare decision-making and methods to support conversations about overuse.

BMJ Qual Saf. 2025-3-19

[4]
Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

BMJ Open. 2019-8-28

[5]
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1

[6]
Skills for Shared Decision-Making: Evaluation of a Health Literacy Program for Consumers with Lower Literacy Levels.

Health Lit Res Pract. 2019-10-3

[7]
Development and field testing of a consumer shared decision-making training program for adults with low literacy.

Patient Educ Couns. 2015-10

[8]
Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Intern Med. 2020-9-1

[9]
The Momentum trial: the efficacy of using a smartphone application to promote patient activation and support shared decision making in people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in outpatient treatment settings: a randomized controlled single-blind trial.

BMC Psychiatry. 2019-6-17

[10]
Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-5-12

引用本文的文献

[1]
One-Page Patient Fact Sheets for Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2025-7-1

[2]
Communication Processes Related to Decision-Making in Medication Management Between Healthcare Providers, Older People and Their Carers: A Systematic Review.

Health Expect. 2025-4

[3]
What are the general public's expectations about the likely duration of common acute infections? A cross-sectional survey of Australian residents.

BMJ Open. 2024-12-22

[4]
Equity in Choosing Wisely and beyond: the effect of health literacy on healthcare decision-making and methods to support conversations about overuse.

BMJ Qual Saf. 2025-3-19

本文引用的文献

[1]
Lessons From the Choosing Wisely Campaign's 10 Years of Addressing Overuse in Health Care.

JAMA Health Forum. 2022-6-3

[2]
Integrating the Choosing Wisely 5 Questions into Family Meetings in the Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Effect on Family Perceived Involvement in Decision-Making.

J Patient Exp. 2022-4-11

[3]
The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review.

Milbank Q. 2021-12

[4]
How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research.

Soc Sci Med. 2021-9

[5]
Promise and perils of patient decision aids for reducing low-value care.

BMJ Qual Saf. 2020-12-24

[6]
Evaluation of the Choosing Wisely Australia 5 Questions resource and a shared decision-making preparation video: protocol for an online experiment.

BMJ Open. 2019-11-14

[7]
Reducing overuse in healthcare: advancing Choosing Wisely.

BMJ. 2019-11-5

[8]
Semistructured interviews regarding patients' perceptions of Choosing Wisely and shared decision-making: an Australian study.

BMJ Open. 2019-8-28

[9]
Randomized trial of planning tools to reduce unhealthy snacking: Implications for health literacy.

PLoS One. 2019-1-17

[10]
Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-7-19

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索