• 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

交流而非培训提高了医生诊断其患者对结肠癌筛查偏好的准确性。

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.

机构信息

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Feb;119:108047. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.108047. Epub 2023 Nov 10.

DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2023.108047
PMID:37976668
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10841970/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC.

RESULTS

382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length.

CONCLUSION

Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

摘要

目的

确定初级保健医生(PCP)是否准确理解患者对结直肠癌(CRC)检测的偏好,共享决策(SDM)培训是否能提高对患者偏好的理解,以及讨论 CRC 检测是否会花费时间来提高对患者偏好的理解。

方法

对一项比较 SDM 培训加提醒组与单独提醒组的试验进行二次分析。PCP 和他们的患者在就诊后完成了调查,以评估他们是否讨论了 CRC 检测、患者的检测偏好以及讨论 CRC 检测的时间。我们比较了患者和 PCP 的反应,计算了患者-医生二人组之间的偏好一致性。多水平模型测试了不同手臂或讨论 CRC 的时间对偏好一致性的影响。

结果

确定了 382 对 PCP 和患者调查二人组。大多数二人组在是否讨论 CRC 检测方面达成一致(82%)。只有 52%的二人组在患者的偏好上达成一致。SDM 培训并没有影响 PCP 对偏好诊断的准确性(55%对 48%,p=0.22)。无论讨论的时间长短,当讨论 CRC 检测时,PCP 更有可能准确诊断患者的偏好。

结论

只有一半的 PCP 准确识别出患者的检测偏好。培训没有影响准确性。讨论 CRC 检测的就诊使 PCP 更好地理解患者的偏好。

实践意义

PCP 应该花时间讨论检测和了解患者的偏好。

相似文献

1
Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.交流而非培训提高了医生诊断其患者对结肠癌筛查偏好的准确性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Feb;119:108047. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.108047. Epub 2023 Nov 10.
2
Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening for Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.老年人结直肠癌筛查中的共同决策:一项集群随机临床试验的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Aug 1;7(8):e2429645. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.29645.
3
Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.促进老年人结直肠癌筛查的知情决策(PRIMED 研究):一项医生聚类随机试验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Feb;38(2):406-413. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07738-4. Epub 2022 Aug 5.
4
Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys.培训初级保健医生,使其能平等地为患者提供粪便潜血检测和结肠镜检查以进行结直肠癌筛查:一项采用前后对照和并行组调查的试点干预措施。
BMJ Open. 2016 May 13;6(5):e011086. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011086.
5
Role of patient-provider communication on older adults' preferences for continuing colorectal cancer testing and visit satisfaction.患者-提供者沟通对老年患者继续进行结直肠癌检测和就诊满意度的偏好的作用。
Patient Educ Couns. 2025 Jan;130:108452. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108452. Epub 2024 Sep 23.
6
Primary Care Physicians' Support of Shared Decision Making for Different Cancer Screening Decisions.初级保健医生对不同癌症筛查决策中共同决策的支持。
Med Decis Making. 2017 Jan;37(1):70-78. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16660547. Epub 2016 Jul 18.
7
Variation in primary care physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations by patient age and comorbidity.初级保健医生对结直肠癌筛查建议的变化取决于患者年龄和合并症。
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Jan;28(1):18-24. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2093-6. Epub 2012 Jun 1.
8
Clinical Notes Contain Limited Documentation of Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.临床记录中关于结直肠癌筛查决策的共同决策记录有限。
Med Decis Making. 2025 May 28:272989X251340704. doi: 10.1177/0272989X251340704.
9
Managed care patients' preferences, physician recommendations, and colon cancer screening.管理式医疗患者的偏好、医生建议与结肠癌筛查。
Am J Manag Care. 2014 Jul;20(7):555-61.
10
Offering patients a choice for colorectal cancer screening: a quality improvement pilot study in a quality circle of primary care physicians.为患者提供结直肠癌筛查选择:一项针对基层医疗医生质量改进圈的试点研究
BMJ Open Qual. 2019 Oct 3;8(4):e000670. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000670. eCollection 2019.

引用本文的文献

1
Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening for Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.老年人结直肠癌筛查中的共同决策:一项集群随机临床试验的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Aug 1;7(8):e2429645. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.29645.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions.癌症筛查与用药决策中共同决策过程量表的评估
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Mar;108:107617. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.107617. Epub 2022 Dec 23.
2
Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.促进老年人结直肠癌筛查的知情决策(PRIMED 研究):一项医生聚类随机试验。
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Feb;38(2):406-413. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07738-4. Epub 2022 Aug 5.
3
My Goals Are Not Their Goals: Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of Patient-Centered Care for Patients with Multimorbidity.我的目标不是他们的目标:为患有多种疾病的患者提供以患者为中心的护理的障碍和促进因素。
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Dec;37(16):4189-4196. doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07533-1. Epub 2022 May 23.
4
Collaboration and Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Clinicians in Preventive Health Care Decisions and US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.患者与临床医生在预防保健决策中的协作和共同决策,以及美国预防服务工作组的建议。
JAMA. 2022 Mar 22;327(12):1171-1176. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.3267.
5
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Updated Guidelines From the American College of Gastroenterology.结直肠癌筛查:美国胃肠病学会的更新指南
Am Fam Physician. 2022 Mar 1;105(3):327-329.
6
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.结直肠癌筛查:美国预防服务工作组推荐声明。
JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1965-1977. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.6238.
7
What and how are students taught about communicating risks to patients? Analysis of a medical curriculum.学生接受了哪些关于向患者传达风险的内容和方法的教育?对医学课程的分析。
PLoS One. 2020 May 29;15(5):e0233682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233682. eCollection 2020.
8
Training Interventions to Equip Health Care Professionals With Shared Decision-Making Skills: A Systematic Scoping Review.培养医疗保健专业人员共享决策技能的培训干预措施:一项系统综述。
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2020 Spring;40(2):100-119. doi: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000289.
9
Strategies to evaluate healthcare provider trainings in shared decision-making (SDM): a systematic review of evaluation studies.评估医疗服务提供者在共享决策(SDM)方面培训的策略:评估研究的系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 21;9(6):e026488. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026488.
10
Much to do with nothing: microsimulation study on time management in primary care.无事生非:初级保健中时间管理的微观模拟研究。
BMJ. 2018 Dec 13;363:k4983. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4983.