Suppr超能文献

临床医患交流中的议程设置:系统综述方案

Agenda-setting in the clinical encounter: A systematic review protocol.

机构信息

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States of America.

Center for Technology and Behavioral Health, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, United States of America.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 24;19(10):e0312613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312613. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Agenda-setting is a collaborative communication strategy used by a clinician before or at the start of a clinical encounter to work together with the patient to "elicit, propose, and organize" topics to be discussed during the encounter. While clinical visit agenda-setting has been acknowledged as an important element of patient-centered communication, the effectiveness of agenda-setting interventions in improving healthcare outcomes is unclear. To our knowledge, no systematic review has examined clinical visit agenda-setting interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The primary aim of the systematic review will be to assess the effects of agenda-setting interventions on outcomes relating to the clinical encounter itself, patients, and clinicians, as well as any other study-specified outcomes. Our secondary aims will be to examine the characteristics and delivery attributes of agenda-setting interventions, as well as how agenda-setting has been operationalized and measured. We will search selected databases (APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE via PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science) and gray literature from inception until date of search. All studies comparing a clinical visit agenda-setting intervention with either usual care or another agenda-setting intervention will be included. Two independent reviewers will complete article screening and data extraction, with a third independent reviewer resolving any conflicts. We will assess all studies' methodological quality and the quality of their evidence using standardized criteria. If a sufficient number of studies report the same outcomes, we will pool their results and perform a meta-analysis of those outcomes. We will also synthesize all results qualitatively, regardless of whether we are able to complete a meta-analysis.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023468045.

摘要

简介

议程设置是临床医生在临床就诊前或就诊开始时使用的一种协作沟通策略,旨在与患者一起“引出、提出和组织”在就诊期间要讨论的主题。虽然临床就诊议程设置已被认为是患者为中心的沟通的重要组成部分,但议程设置干预措施在改善医疗保健结果方面的有效性尚不清楚。据我们所知,没有系统评价检查过临床就诊议程设置干预措施。

方法和分析

系统评价的主要目的将是评估议程设置干预措施对与临床就诊本身、患者和临床医生相关的结果以及任何其他指定的研究结果的影响。我们的次要目的将是检查议程设置干预措施的特征和交付属性,以及如何实施和衡量议程设置。我们将从开始到搜索日期搜索选定的数据库(APA PsycInfo、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册、Cochrane 系统评价数据库、护理和联合健康文献累积索引、MEDLINE 通过 PubMed、ProQuest、Scopus 和 Web of Science)和灰色文献。所有比较临床就诊议程设置干预措施与常规护理或另一种议程设置干预措施的研究都将包括在内。两名独立评审员将完成文章筛选和数据提取,第三名独立评审员将解决任何冲突。我们将使用标准化标准评估所有研究的方法学质量及其证据质量。如果有足够数量的研究报告相同的结果,我们将汇总这些结果并对这些结果进行荟萃分析。无论我们是否能够完成荟萃分析,我们都将对所有结果进行定性综合。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42023468045。

相似文献

1
Agenda-setting in the clinical encounter: A systematic review protocol.临床医患交流中的议程设置:系统综述方案
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 24;19(10):e0312613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312613. eCollection 2024.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
Interrupted opening statements in clinical encounters: A scoping review.临床交流中中断的开场陈述:范围综述。
Patient Educ Couns. 2022 Aug;105(8):2653-2663. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.026. Epub 2022 Mar 31.

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