• 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

在临床实践指南中促进患者和医疗保健专业人员之间的共享决策:为指南制定者开发和测试工具的项目的方案。

Fostering Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Health Care Professionals in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Protocol for a Project to Develop and Test a Tool for Guideline Developers.

机构信息

Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany.

Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Rüdersdorf, Germany.

出版信息

JMIR Res Protoc. 2024 Nov 4;13:e57611. doi: 10.2196/57611.

DOI:10.2196/57611
PMID:39495553
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11574490/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to assist health care professionals in medical decision-making, but they often lack effective integration of shared decision-making (SDM) principles to reflect patient values and preferences, particularly in the context of preference-sensitive CPG recommendations. To address this shortcoming and foster SDM through CPGs, the integration of patient decision aids (PDAs) into CPGs has been proposed as an important strategy. However, methods for systematically identifying and prioritizing CPG recommendations relevant to SDM and related decision support tools are currently lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the project is to develop (1) a tool for systematically identifying and prioritizing CPG recommendations for which SDM is considered particularly relevant and (2) a platform for PDAs to support practical SDM implementation.

METHODS

The project consists of 6 work packages (WPs). It is embedded in the German health care context but has an international focus. In WP 1, we will conduct a scoping review in bibliographic databases and gray literature sources to identify methods used to foster SDM via PDAs in the context of CPGs. In WP 2, we will conduct semistructured interviews with CPG experts to better understand the concepts of preference sensitivity and identify strategies for fostering SDM through CPGs. WP 3, a modified Delphi study including surveys and focus groups with SDM experts, aims to define and operationalize preference sensitivity. Based on the results of the Delphi study, we will develop a methodology for prioritizing key questions in CPGs. In WP 4, the tool will be developed. A list of relevant items to identify CPG recommendations for which SDM is most relevant will be created, tested, and iteratively refined, accompanied by the development of a user manual. In WP 5, a platform for creating and digitizing German-language PDAs will be developed to support the practical application of SDM during clinical encounters. WP 6 will conclude the project by testing the tool with newly developed and revised CPGs.

RESULTS

The Brandenburg Medical School Ethics Committee approved the project (165122023-ANF). An international multidisciplinary advisory board is involved to guide the tool development on CPGs and SDM. Patient partners are involved throughout the project, considering the essential role of the patient perspective in SDM. As of February 20, 2024, we are currently assessing literature references to determine eligibility for inclusion in the scoping review (WP 1). We expect the project to be completed by December 31, 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool will enable CPG developers to systematically incorporate aspects of SDM into CPG development, thereby providing guideline-based support for the patient-practitioner interaction. Together, the tool for CPGs and the platform for PDAs will create a systematic link between CPGs, SDM, and PDAs, which may facilitate SDM in clinical practice.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57611.

摘要

背景

临床实践指南(CPGs)旨在协助医疗保健专业人员进行医疗决策,但它们通常缺乏对共享决策(SDM)原则的有效整合,以反映患者的价值观和偏好,尤其是在偏好敏感的 CPG 建议方面。为了解决这一不足并通过 CPG 促进 SDM,有人提出将患者决策辅助工具(PDAs)纳入 CPG 作为一项重要策略。然而,目前缺乏系统识别和优先考虑与 SDM 相关的 CPG 建议及其相关决策支持工具的方法。

目的

该项目的目的是开发(1)一种用于系统地识别和优先考虑 SDM 被认为特别相关的 CPG 建议的工具,以及(2)一个支持实际 SDM 实施的 PDA 平台。

方法

该项目由 6 个工作包(WP)组成。它嵌入在德国医疗保健背景中,但具有国际重点。在 WP1 中,我们将在文献数据库和灰色文献来源中进行范围审查,以确定在 CPG 背景下通过 PDAs 促进 SDM 所使用的方法。在 WP2 中,我们将与 CPG 专家进行半结构化访谈,以更好地理解偏好敏感性的概念,并确定通过 CPG 促进 SDM 的策略。WP3 是一项包括 SDM 专家的调查和焦点小组的改良 Delphi 研究,旨在定义和操作偏好敏感性。基于 Delphi 研究的结果,我们将为 CPG 中的关键问题制定优先级排序的方法。在 WP4 中,我们将开发该工具。将创建、测试和迭代改进一个用于识别最相关的 SDM 的 CPG 建议的相关项目清单,并编写用户手册。在 WP5 中,我们将开发一个用于创建和数字化德语 PDAs 的平台,以支持在临床就诊期间实际应用 SDM。WP6 将通过使用新开发和修订的 CPG 来测试该工具,从而完成该项目。

结果

勃兰登堡医学院伦理委员会批准了该项目(165122023-ANF)。一个国际多学科咨询委员会参与指导 CPG 和 SDM 方面的工具开发。患者伙伴自始至终都参与其中,考虑到患者视角在 SDM 中的重要作用。截至 2024 年 2 月 20 日,我们目前正在评估文献参考文献,以确定是否符合纳入范围审查的标准(WP1)。预计该项目将于 2026 年 12 月 31 日完成。

结论

该工具将使 CPG 开发人员能够系统地将 SDM 方面纳入 CPG 开发,从而为医患互动提供基于指南的支持。CPG 工具和 PDA 平台将共同创建 CPG、SDM 和 PDAs 之间的系统联系,这可能有助于在临床实践中促进 SDM。

国际注册报告标识符(IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/57611。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/93e0/11574490/685884c95528/resprot_v13i1e57611_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/93e0/11574490/685884c95528/resprot_v13i1e57611_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/93e0/11574490/685884c95528/resprot_v13i1e57611_fig1.jpg

相似文献

1
Fostering Shared Decision-Making Between Patients and Health Care Professionals in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Protocol for a Project to Develop and Test a Tool for Guideline Developers.在临床实践指南中促进患者和医疗保健专业人员之间的共享决策:为指南制定者开发和测试工具的项目的方案。
JMIR Res Protoc. 2024 Nov 4;13:e57611. doi: 10.2196/57611.
2
The clinical practice guideline palliative care for children and other strategies to enhance shared decision-making in pediatric palliative care; pediatricians' critical reflections.儿童姑息治疗的临床实践指南和其他增强儿科姑息治疗中共享决策的策略;儿科医生的批判性思考。
BMC Pediatr. 2019 Nov 29;19(1):467. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1849-0.
3
Toward Shared Decision-Making in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.迈向退行性颈椎脊髓病的共同决策:一项混合方法研究的方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2023 Oct 9;12:e46809. doi: 10.2196/46809.
4
Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.乳腺癌治疗指南中的共同决策:质量评估工具的制定和系统评价。
Health Expect. 2020 Oct;23(5):1045-1064. doi: 10.1111/hex.13112. Epub 2020 Aug 3.
5
Shared decision-making (SDM) in dentistry: A concise narrative review.口腔医学中的共同决策(SDM):简明叙述性综述。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1088-1093. doi: 10.1111/jep.13129. Epub 2019 Mar 28.
6
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.
7
Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.提高医疗保健专业人员采用共同决策的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12(5):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub2.
8
Role of patient preferences in clinical practice guidelines: a multiple methods study using guidelines from oncology as a case.患者偏好在临床实践指南中的作用:以肿瘤学指南为例的多方法研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 5;9(12):e032483. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032483.
9
Engaging patients in health care decisions in the emergency department through shared decision-making: a systematic review.通过共同决策让患者参与急诊科的医疗决策:系统评价。
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Aug;19(8):959-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01414.x. Epub 2012 Jul 31.
10
Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital.让共同决策(SDM)成为现实:德国北部一家大学医院大规模长期实施SDM项目的方案
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 10;10(10):e037575. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037575.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessing TDApp: An AI-based clinical decision support system for ADHD treatment recommendations.评估TDApp:一种基于人工智能的用于多动症治疗建议的临床决策支持系统。
Front Psychiatry. 2025 Aug 22;16:1582746. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1582746. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.决策辅助工具用于帮助面临医疗保健治疗或筛查决策的人。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.
2
ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.ACCORD(准确共识报告文件):通过改良 Delphi 法制定的生物医学共识方法报告指南。
PLoS Med. 2024 Jan 23;21(1):e1004326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326. eCollection 2024 Jan.
3
Patient-reported effects of hospital-wide implementation of shared decision-making at a university medical centre in Germany: a pre-post trial.
德国一所大学医学中心实施全院共享决策对患者的影响:一项前后试验。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Mar 21;29(2):87-95. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112462.
4
The limits of shared decision making.共同决策的局限性。
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023 Aug;28(4):218-221. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112089. Epub 2022 Dec 15.
5
Cultural influences on shared decision-making among Asian Americans: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.亚裔美国人共享决策中的文化影响:定性研究的系统评价和元综合。
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Jan;106:17-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.10.350. Epub 2022 Oct 30.
6
For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? - A systematic review.共同决策被认为适用于哪些决策?——一项系统综述。
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Jan;106:3-16. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.09.015. Epub 2022 Sep 28.
7
Editorial: 20 years after the start of international Shared Decision-Making activities: Is it time to celebrate? Probably… .社论:国际共同决策活动开展20年后:是时候庆祝了吗?或许吧……
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022 Jun;171:1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2022.05.009. Epub 2022 May 31.
8
Exploring the Relationship between Shared Decision-Making, Patient-Centered Medicine, and Evidence-Based Medicine.探索共同决策、以患者为中心的医学和循证医学之间的关系。
Linacre Q. 2021 Aug;88(3):272-280. doi: 10.1177/00243639211018355. Epub 2021 Jun 30.
9
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.范围综述实施的更新方法学指南。
JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct;18(10):2119-2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.
10
Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.乳腺癌治疗指南中的共同决策:质量评估工具的制定和系统评价。
Health Expect. 2020 Oct;23(5):1045-1064. doi: 10.1111/hex.13112. Epub 2020 Aug 3.