• 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

共同决策——对其在哮喘中的评估、疗效及适用性的综述

Shared decision making - a review of its evaluation, efficacy, and applicability in asthma.

作者信息

Piątkowska Adrianna, Marszałek Kamil, Krupińska Natalia, Malaya Elizabeth, Adamczewska Magdalena, Kuna Piotr, Panek Michał

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.

出版信息

Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Aug 12;12:1639805. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1639805. eCollection 2025.

DOI:10.3389/fmed.2025.1639805
PMID:40873791
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12378715/
Abstract

Over the years, the approach to medical decision-making has evolved significantly-from the traditional paternalistic model, in which decisions were made on behalf of the patient, to Shared Decision Making (SDM), which actively involves patients in the process. Given that a strong patient-healthcare provider relationship is a key factor in effective treatment, the literature increasingly highlights the importance of incorporating patient preferences. To achieve this, patients must receive clear explanations about their condition and treatment options, as well as care plans tailored to their individual needs. This is particularly relevant in conditions requiring long-term treatment, where outcomes depend heavily on patient adherence, motivation, and consistency. Chronic diseases like asthma require ongoing cooperation and trust between patients and healthcare providers. Asthma, one of the most common chronic respiratory conditions, has no curative treatment; its management relies on daily inhaled medications to control symptoms and prevent exacerbations. Several models have been developed to structure SDM implementation, ranging from basic frameworks promoting engagement to comprehensive approaches emphasizing environmental readiness and professional education. Key components include blended learning for healthcare providers and standardized tools to operationalize SDM, such as Patient Decision Aids (e.g., Written Asthma Action Plans) and multilingual resources like "Asthma Australia." These tools are particularly valuable in overcoming barriers such as language and cultural differences, which can hinder access to care-especially for minority groups. Discrimination and lack of tailored communication can disproportionately affect patients with intellectual disabilities and those from culturally diverse backgrounds, highlighting the need for inclusive, individualized approaches in SDM-based chronic disease care. Although SDM shows promise in improving patient satisfaction, adherence, and potentially reducing healthcare costs, robust evidence remains limited. Global studies are needed to assess its true efficacy across various chronic conditions. This review aims to systematically analyze SDM models described in the literature, align them with asthma management requirements, incorporate patient needs and expectations, and propose practical strategies for integrating SDM in asthma care and other chronic respiratory diseases. Trust in healthcare providers is associated with improved health outcomes and increased treatment adherence, like for example "Asthma Australia" barriers to satisfactory care remain, particularly for patients from minority groups, who often face linguistic challenges, The structured integration of Shared Decision-Making (SDM). Although SDM has the potential to enhance patient satisfaction, improve adherence, and reduce healthcare costs is promising, conclusive evidence remains limited. The potential gain is not however excluded. There is a need for more data from studies on global scale to objectively determine its efficacy and applicability in various chronic conditions.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd6e/12378715/2aaf2f37a8c0/fmed-12-1639805-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd6e/12378715/2aaf2f37a8c0/fmed-12-1639805-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd6e/12378715/2aaf2f37a8c0/fmed-12-1639805-g001.jpg
摘要

多年来,医疗决策方法已发生显著演变——从传统的家长式模式(即替患者做决策)发展到共同决策(SDM),后者让患者积极参与决策过程。鉴于稳固的医患关系是有效治疗的关键因素,文献越来越强调纳入患者偏好的重要性。要做到这一点,患者必须得到关于其病情和治疗选择的清晰解释,以及根据其个人需求量身定制的护理计划。这在需要长期治疗的疾病中尤为重要,因为治疗结果在很大程度上取决于患者的依从性、积极性和连贯性。像哮喘这样的慢性病需要患者和医疗服务提供者之间持续的合作与信任。哮喘是最常见的慢性呼吸道疾病之一,没有治愈方法;其管理依赖于每日吸入药物来控制症状和预防病情加重。已经开发了几种模型来构建SDM的实施,从促进参与的基本框架到强调环境准备和专业教育的综合方法。关键组成部分包括为医疗服务提供者提供混合式学习以及用于实施SDM的标准化工具,如患者决策辅助工具(如书面哮喘行动计划)和“澳大利亚哮喘”等多语言资源。这些工具在克服语言和文化差异等障碍方面特别有价值,这些障碍可能会阻碍获得医疗服务,尤其是对少数群体而言。歧视和缺乏针对性的沟通可能会对智障患者和来自不同文化背景的患者产生不成比例的影响,这凸显了在基于SDM的慢性病护理中采用包容性、个性化方法的必要性。尽管SDM在提高患者满意度、依从性以及可能降低医疗成本方面显示出前景,但有力的证据仍然有限。需要进行全球研究来评估其在各种慢性病中的真正疗效。本综述旨在系统分析文献中描述的SDM模型,使其与哮喘管理要求相一致,纳入患者需求和期望,并提出将SDM整合到哮喘护理和其他慢性呼吸道疾病中的实用策略。对医疗服务提供者的信任与改善健康结果和提高治疗依从性相关,例如“澳大利亚哮喘”获得满意护理的障碍仍然存在,特别是对于少数群体患者,他们经常面临语言挑战,共同决策(SDM)的结构化整合。尽管SDM有可能提高患者满意度、改善依从性并降低医疗成本,前景乐观,但确凿证据仍然有限。然而,潜在收益并非不存在。需要更多来自全球范围研究的数据,以客观确定其在各种慢性病中的疗效和适用性。

相似文献

1
Shared decision making - a review of its evaluation, efficacy, and applicability in asthma.共同决策——对其在哮喘中的评估、疗效及适用性的综述
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Aug 12;12:1639805. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1639805. eCollection 2025.
2
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
3
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.
4
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.
5
Sexual Harassment and Prevention Training性骚扰与预防培训
6
[Guidelines for the prevention and management of bronchial asthma (2024 edition)].[支气管哮喘防治指南(2024年版)]
Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2025 Mar 12;48(3):208-248. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112147-20241013-00601.
7
Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.改善消费者安全有效用药的干预措施:系统评价概述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 29;2014(4):CD007768. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007768.pub3.
8
Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.支持女性进行乳腺癌筛查决策的共享决策。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 May 10;5(5):CD013822. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013822.pub2.
9
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.
10
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations.为医疗服务提供者提供的干预措施,以促进临床会诊中以患者为中心的方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD003267. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003267.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
The role of training and education for enhancing empathy among healthcare students: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.培训与教育在增强医学生同理心方面的作用:随机对照试验的系统评价
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Apr 1;25(1):469. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07038-5.
2
"Developing the tool SDM:KOMPASS. Supporting shared decision making implementation processes".开发工具 SDM:KOMPASS,支持共享决策制定实施过程。
PLoS One. 2024 Nov 18;19(11):e0312990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312990. eCollection 2024.
3
Primary healthcare professionals' perceptions, attitudes and ideas regarding asthma management in Greece: A mixed-method study.
希腊初级保健专业人员对哮喘管理的看法、态度和想法:一项混合方法研究。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2024 Dec;30(1):2418301. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2024.2418301. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
4
The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review.共同决策对健康结果、医疗质量、成本和咨询时间的影响:伞式综述。
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Dec;129:108408. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108408. Epub 2024 Aug 24.
5
Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids for Stroke Prevention Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Management.心房颤动管理中预防中风治疗的患者决策辅助工具的系统评价
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Oct 18;23(10):353. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2310353. eCollection 2022 Oct.
6
Risk of renal impairment in atypical antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.非典型抗精神病药致肾功能损害风险:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2024 Oct;80(10):1435-1444. doi: 10.1007/s00228-024-03714-5. Epub 2024 Jun 25.
7
A systematic review of shared decision making training programs for general practitioners.系统评价全科医生共享决策培训方案。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 May 29;24(1):592. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05557-1.
8
The experience of shared decision-making for people with asthma: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies.哮喘患者共享决策的体验:系统评价和定性研究的荟萃分析。
Health Expect. 2024 Apr;27(2):e14039. doi: 10.1111/hex.14039.
9
Patient education needs in severe asthma, a pilot study.严重哮喘患者的教育需求:一项试点研究。
BMC Pulm Med. 2024 Mar 15;24(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-02960-8.
10
Medication Adherence in Children with Asthma.哮喘儿童的药物依从性
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024 Mar 5;18:555-564. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S445534. eCollection 2024.