PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the world. There are some decision-making conflicts in the management of chest pain, treatment methods, stent selection, and other aspects due to the unstable condition of CHD in the treatment stage. Although using decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) contributes to high-quality decision-making, it has not been evaluated in the field of CHD. This review systematically assessed the effects of SDM in patients with CHD.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of SDM interventions in patients with CHD from database inception to 1 June 2022 (PROSPERO [Unique identifier: CRD42022338938]). We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases. The primary outcomes were knowledge and decision conflict. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction, patient participation, trust, acceptance, quality of life, and psychological condition.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 8244 studies were retrieved. After screening, ten studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the control group, SDM intervention with patient decision aids obviously improved patients\' knowledge, decision satisfaction, participation, and medical outcomes and reduced decision-making conflict. There was no significant effect of SDM on trust.
UNASSIGNED: This study showed that SDM intervention in the form of decision aids was beneficial to decision-making quality and treatment outcomes among patients with CHD. The results of SDM interventions need to be evaluated in different environments.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of SDM interventions in patients with CHD from database inception to 1 June 2022 (PROSPERO [Unique identifier: CRD42022338938]). We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases. The primary outcomes were knowledge and decision conflict. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction, patient participation, trust, acceptance, quality of life, and psychological condition.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 8244 studies were retrieved. After screening, ten studies were included in the analysis. Compared with the control group, SDM intervention with patient decision aids obviously improved patients\' knowledge, decision satisfaction, participation, and medical outcomes and reduced decision-making conflict. There was no significant effect of SDM on trust.
UNASSIGNED: This study showed that SDM intervention in the form of decision aids was beneficial to decision-making quality and treatment outcomes among patients with CHD. The results of SDM interventions need to be evaluated in different environments.
摘要：
冠心病（CHD）是世界上主要的死亡原因。胸痛的处理存在一些决策冲突,治疗方法,支架选择,等方面由于冠心病在治疗阶段的病情不稳定。尽管使用决策辅助工具来促进共享决策（SDM）有助于高质量的决策，尚未在冠心病领域进行评估。本文系统评价了SDM在冠心病患者中的作用。
我们对从数据库开始到2022年6月1日的SDM干预治疗冠心病患者的随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析(PROSPERO[唯一标识符：CRD42022338938])。我们在PubMed中搜索了相关研究，Embase,科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,CNKI,和万方数据库。主要结果是知识和决策冲突。次要结果是满意度，患者参与,信任,接受,生活质量,和心理状况。
■共检索到8244项研究。筛选后,10项研究纳入分析.与对照组相比,SDM对患者决策辅助的干预明显提高了患者的知识，决策满意度，参与,和医疗结果，减少决策冲突。SDM对信任没有显著影响。
■这项研究表明，以决策辅助方式进行的SDM干预有利于冠心病患者的决策质量和治疗结果。需要在不同的环境中评估SDM干预措施的结果。
我们对从数据库开始到2022年6月1日的SDM干预治疗冠心病患者的随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析(PROSPERO[唯一标识符：CRD42022338938])。我们在PubMed中搜索了相关研究，Embase,科克伦图书馆,WebofScience,CNKI,和万方数据库。主要结果是知识和决策冲突。次要结果是满意度，患者参与,信任,接受,生活质量,和心理状况。
■共检索到8244项研究。筛选后,10项研究纳入分析.与对照组相比,SDM对患者决策辅助的干预明显提高了患者的知识，决策满意度，参与,和医疗结果，减少决策冲突。SDM对信任没有显著影响。
■这项研究表明，以决策辅助方式进行的SDM干预有利于冠心病患者的决策质量和治疗结果。需要在不同的环境中评估SDM干预措施的结果。
