• 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

有限健康素养患者的共享决策中获益和危害的沟通:风险沟通策略的系统评价。

Communication of benefits and harms in shared decision making with patients with limited health literacy: A systematic review of risk communication strategies.

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Nov;116:107944. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107944. Epub 2023 Aug 17.

DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2023.107944
PMID:37619376
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Risk communication (RC), as part of shared decision making, is challenging with people with limited health literacy (LHL). We aim to provide an overview of strategies to communicate benefits and harms of diagnostic and treatment options to this group.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and PsycInfo. We included 28 studies on RC in informed/shared decision making without restriction to a health setting or condition and using a broad conceptualization of health literacy. Two researchers independently selected studies and one researcher performed data extraction. We descriptively compared findings for people with LHL towards recommendations for RC.

RESULTS

Health literacy levels varied in the included studies. Most studies used experimental designs, primarily on visual RC. Findings show verbal RC alone should be avoided. Framing of risk information influences risk perception (less risky when positively framed, riskier when negatively framed). Most studies recommended the use of icon arrays. Graph literacy should be considered when using visual RC.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence suggests that recommended RC strategies seem mainly to be valid for people with LHL, but more research is required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

More qualitative research involving people with LHL is needed to gain further in-depth insights into optimal RC strategies.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID 275022.

摘要

目的

风险沟通(RC)作为共同决策的一部分,对于健康素养有限(LHL)的人来说具有挑战性。我们旨在提供概述,介绍向这一群体传达诊断和治疗选择的益处和危害的策略。

方法

我们系统地检索了 PubMed、Embase、Cinahl 和 PsycInfo。我们纳入了 28 项关于无健康设置或条件限制且广泛概念化健康素养的知情/共同决策中的 RC 的研究。两名研究人员独立选择研究,一名研究人员进行数据提取。我们针对 LHL 人群对 RC 的建议,对发现结果进行了描述性比较。

结果

纳入研究中的健康素养水平各不相同。大多数研究采用了实验设计,主要针对视觉 RC。研究结果表明,单独使用口头 RC 应避免。风险信息的呈现方式会影响风险感知(正面呈现时风险较低,负面呈现时风险较高)。大多数研究建议使用图标数组。在使用视觉 RC 时应考虑图表素养。

结论

有限的可用证据表明,建议的 RC 策略似乎主要适用于健康素养有限的人群,但仍需要更多研究。

实践意义

需要更多涉及健康素养有限人群的定性研究,以深入了解最佳 RC 策略。

注册协议

PROSPERO ID 275022。

相似文献

1
Communication of benefits and harms in shared decision making with patients with limited health literacy: A systematic review of risk communication strategies.有限健康素养患者的共享决策中获益和危害的沟通:风险沟通策略的系统评价。
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Nov;116:107944. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107944. Epub 2023 Aug 17.
2
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.为面临医疗治疗或筛查决策的人们提供的决策辅助工具。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 5(10):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
3
Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence.父母及非正式照料者关于儿童常规疫苗接种沟通的观点与经历:定性证据综述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 7;2(2):CD011787. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011787.pub2.
4
The experience of adults who choose watchful waiting or active surveillance as an approach to medical treatment: a qualitative systematic review.选择观察等待或主动监测作为治疗方法的成年人的经历:一项定性系统评价。
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):174-255. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2270.
5
Factors that impact on the use of mechanical ventilation weaning protocols in critically ill adults and children: a qualitative evidence-synthesis.影响重症成人和儿童机械通气撤机方案使用的因素:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 4;10(10):CD011812. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011812.pub2.
6
Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people.干预健康从业者与受影响者之间关于临终关怀的人际沟通。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 8;7(7):CD013116. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013116.pub2.
7
Shared decision-making for people with asthma.哮喘患者的共同决策
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 3;10(10):CD012330. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012330.pub2.
8
Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.关于进行筛查测试的明智决策的个性化风险沟通。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18(4):CD001865. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub2.
9
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.
10
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.为面临医疗治疗或筛查决策的人们提供的决策辅助工具。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4(4):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.

引用本文的文献

1
Option talk and risk communication with people with limited health literacy: A qualitative focus group study with key stakeholders.与健康素养有限的人群进行期权讨论和风险沟通:一项与关键利益相关者开展的定性焦点小组研究。
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 29;20(8):e0330191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330191. eCollection 2025.
2
Synthesizing Cohort Study Results to Promote Knowledge Transfer of Safety Data Regarding Gestational Antidepressant Exposure and Offspring Congenital Anomalies: A Test of Concept.综合队列研究结果以促进关于孕期抗抑郁药暴露与子代先天性异常的安全数据的知识转移:一项概念验证试验。
Birth Defects Res. 2025 Jun;117(6):e2496. doi: 10.1002/bdr2.2496.
3
Improving shared decision‑making between paediatric haematologists, children with sickle cell disease, and their parents: an observational post-intervention study.
改善儿科血液学家、镰状细胞病患儿及其父母之间的共同决策:一项干预后观察性研究。
Eur J Pediatr. 2025 Jun 12;184(7):417. doi: 10.1007/s00431-025-06241-2.
4
Outpatients' perceptions of collaboration across clinics and health literacy among patients with diabetes and at least one comorbidity: A hospital-level cross-sectional study.糖尿病合并至少一种并发症患者的门诊患者对跨诊所协作的认知及健康素养:一项医院层面的横断面研究。
J Multimorb Comorb. 2025 Apr 30;15:26335565251333877. doi: 10.1177/26335565251333877. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
5
How perceived risk of recurrence strengthens health management awareness in stroke patients: the chain mediating role of risk fear and health literacy.感知复发风险如何增强卒中患者的健康管理意识:风险恐惧和健康素养的链式中介作用
Front Public Health. 2025 Feb 20;13:1524492. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1524492. eCollection 2025.
6
How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.针对健康素养有限人群的患者决策辅助工具的包容性如何?对可理解性标准以及关于选项和概率的沟通的分析
Med Decis Making. 2025 Feb;45(2):143-155. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241302288. Epub 2024 Dec 14.
7
Bridging the care gap: patients' needs and experiences regarding shared decision-making in radiotherapy.弥合护理差距:患者在放射治疗共同决策方面的需求与体验
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2024 Nov 24;50:100897. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100897. eCollection 2025 Jan.
8
Improving the communication of multifactorial cancer risk assessment results for different audiences: a co-design process.改善针对不同受众的多因素癌症风险评估结果的沟通:一个协同设计过程。
J Community Genet. 2024 Oct;15(5):499-515. doi: 10.1007/s12687-024-00729-4. Epub 2024 Sep 25.
9
Impact of two different patient decision aids in prosthodontic consultations: a prospective randomized controlled study.两种不同患者决策辅助工具在修复咨询中的影响:一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Dec;27(12):7841-7849. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-05375-7. Epub 2023 Nov 27.