• 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

关于与患者分享医疗信息的专家建议:一项定性研究。

Expert recommendations on sharing medical information with patients: a qualitative study.

作者信息

Egenberg Herman, Lie Hanne Cathrine, Gerwing Jennifer, Menichetti Julia

机构信息

Department of Behavioural Medicine, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1111, 0317, Oslo, Norway.

Health Services Research Unit (HØKH), Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Aug 28;25(1):1137. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-13223-5.

DOI:10.1186/s12913-025-13223-5
PMID:40877946
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Sharing medical information with patients is essential for patient-centered care, yet empirical research to guide information sharing in clinical practice is inconsistent and scattered across disciplines. Clinicians rarely use established models for sharing information, and patients inconsistently understand and remember the information shared.

OBJECTIVE

Explore experts' views on the task of sharing information.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited fifteen expert clinical communication teachers from six countries, using the snowball method.

APPROACH

Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by authors with both clinical, teaching and research experience, using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conceived four themes addressing the task of sharing information. The overarching theme was: (1) Sharing information with patients should be a dialogue, not a lecture. Further, to improve how they share information with patients, clinicians might want to: (2) Help the patient process emotions; (3) Explore the patient's knowledge and perspective; (4) Tailor and structure the information. Each theme included common challenges and solutions for clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings align with and expand current models for communicating with patients. The themes integrate knowledge from different disciplines, such as psychology, medicine and communication science. The findings provide support for the role of information sharing in patient-centered care and shared decision making. The findings can guide clinicians in the task of sharing information with patients and shape curriculum and training development.

摘要

背景

与患者共享医疗信息对于以患者为中心的医疗至关重要,但指导临床实践中信息共享的实证研究并不一致,且分散在各个学科。临床医生很少使用既定的信息共享模式,患者对所共享信息的理解和记忆也不一致。

目的

探讨专家对信息共享任务的看法。

设计

采用半结构化访谈和反思性主题分析的定性研究。

参与者

我们使用滚雪球法从六个国家招募了15名临床沟通专家教师。

方法

访谈进行录音、转录,由具有临床、教学和研究经验的作者使用反思性主题分析进行分析。

结果

我们构思了四个与信息共享任务相关的主题。总体主题是:(1)与患者共享信息应该是对话,而不是讲座。此外,为了改善与患者共享信息的方式,临床医生可能希望:(2)帮助患者处理情绪;(3)探索患者的知识和观点;(4)调整信息并构建其结构。每个主题都包括临床医生面临的常见挑战和解决方案。

结论

研究结果与当前与患者沟通的模式一致并有所扩展。这些主题整合了来自不同学科的知识,如心理学、医学和传播学。研究结果为信息共享在以患者为中心的医疗和共同决策中的作用提供了支持。研究结果可以指导临床医生与患者共享信息的任务,并塑造课程和培训发展。

相似文献

1
Expert recommendations on sharing medical information with patients: a qualitative study.关于与患者分享医疗信息的专家建议:一项定性研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Aug 28;25(1):1137. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-13223-5.
2
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
3
Can We Enhance Shared Decision-making for Periacetabular Osteotomy Surgery? A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences.我们能否加强髋臼周围截骨术的共同决策?一项关于患者体验的定性研究。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Jan 1;483(1):120-136. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003198. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
4
How Do Individuals Perceive Diagnostic Labels and Explanations for Hip Pain? A Qualitative Study Among Adults With Persistent Hip Pain.个体如何看待髋关节疼痛的诊断标签和解释?一项针对持续性髋关节疼痛成年人的定性研究。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Mar 5. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003445.
5
Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.医护人员非正规使用手机和其他移动设备来支持工作:定性证据综合评价。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 27;8(8):CD015705. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015705.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
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
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.
9
Examining How Technology Supports Shared Decision-Making in Oncology Consultations: Qualitative Thematic Analysis.审视技术如何支持肿瘤学会诊中的共同决策:定性主题分析
JMIR Cancer. 2025 Jun 11;11:e70827. doi: 10.2196/70827.
10
A Spectrum of Understanding: A Qualitative Exploration of Autistic Adults' Understandings and Perceptions of Friendship(s).理解的光谱:对自闭症成年人对友谊的理解与认知的质性探索
Autism Adulthood. 2024 Dec 2;6(4):438-450. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0051. eCollection 2024 Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Medication non-adherence: reflecting on two decades since WHO adherence report and setting goals for the next twenty years.药物治疗不依从性:回顾自世界卫生组织依从性报告发布以来的二十年,并设定未来二十年的目标。
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Dec 23;15:1444012. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1444012. eCollection 2024.
2
Twelve tips for developing healthcare learners' uncertainty tolerance.培养医疗保健学习者不确定性容忍度的十二条建议。
Med Teach. 2024 Aug;46(8):1035-1043. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2024.2307500. Epub 2024 Jan 29.
3
What do we mean by "tailoring" of medical information during clinical interactions?
在临床互动中,我们所说的“定制”医疗信息是什么意思?
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Feb;119:108092. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.108092. Epub 2023 Nov 27.
4
WITHDRAWN: If I say…teach-back.撤回:如果我说……回授法。
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Nov;116:107982. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107982. Epub 2023 Sep 14.
5
Influence of Stress and Emotions in the Learning Process: The Example of COVID-19 on University Students: A Narrative Review.压力和情绪对学习过程的影响:以 COVID-19 对大学生的影响为例:一项叙述性综述
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jun 17;11(12):1787. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11121787.
6
What does shared decision making ask from doctors? Uncovering suppressed qualities that could improve person-centered care.共享决策模式对医生提出了什么要求?发掘被压抑的品质,以改善以患者为中心的医疗服务。
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Sep;114:107801. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107801. Epub 2023 May 20.
7
The "curse of knowledge" when predicting others' knowledge.预测他人知识时的“知识诅咒”现象。
Mem Cognit. 2023 Jul;51(5):1214-1234. doi: 10.3758/s13421-022-01382-3. Epub 2022 Dec 27.
8
Integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.将患者价值观和偏好纳入医疗保健中:定性证据的系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 18;12(11):e067268. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067268.
9
Translating knowledge into practice for communication skills training for health care professionals.将知识转化为实践,为医疗保健专业人员进行沟通技巧培训。
Patient Educ Couns. 2022 Nov;105(11):3334-3338. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.08.004. Epub 2022 Aug 6.
10
Improving uncertainty tolerance in medical students: A scoping review.提高医学生的不确定性容忍度:范围综述。
Med Educ. 2022 Dec;56(12):1163-1173. doi: 10.1111/medu.14873. Epub 2022 Jul 18.