Shared-decision making

共享决策
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    骨关节炎(OA)的护理应更加以身体为中心,情感和社会方面,而不是目前仅基于身体症状的阶梯式护理方法,根据OA患者。通过开发一种用于评估慢性疾病负担(ABCC)工具的新型OA模块,基于这三个方面的工具,经验丰富的OA护理质量和共同决策有望提高。
    新型OA模块的开发涉及三角迭代过程,采访OA患者和OA领域的医疗保健专业人员,专家小组和文献检索,以确定改善OA护理的需求。患者对OA模块的第一个版本提供了反馈,导致第二个版本。第二个版本用于评估内容的有效性。OA患者和OA领域的医疗保健专业人员被要求评估相关性,全面性和可理解性,基于COSMIN方法论。对于医疗保健专业人员,计算项目内容有效性指数(I-CVI)。
    该模块包括有关疼痛的问题,运动障碍和关节僵硬。对于所有三个问题,94%的患者发现这些问题对OA患者很重要。医疗保健专业人员的I-CVI评分范围为1.0(疼痛,运动恐惧症)至0.75(关节刚度)。
    小说,针对ABCC工具开发了特定条件的OA模块,作为一般性问题的补充。该模块包括三个问题,衡量OA的具体投诉。这个新颖的模块旨在使ABCC工具更加复杂,可用于更多的人群。
    UNASSIGNED: Osteoarthritis (OA) care should be more person-centered based on physical, emotional and social aspects, instead of the current stepped-care approach solely based on physical symptoms, according to OA patients. By developing a novel module for OA in the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Condition (ABCC)-tool, a tool based on these three aspects, experienced quality of OA care and shared-decision making are expected to improve.
    UNASSIGNED: The development of the novel OA module involved a triangular iterative process, interviewing OA patients and healthcare professionals in the field of OA, an expert panel and a literature search to identify the needs to improve OA care. Patients provided feedback on the first version of the OA module, leading to a second version. This second version was used to evaluate content validity. OA patients and healthcare professionals in the field of OA were asked to evaluate relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility, based on the COSMIN methodology. For healthcare professionals, the item-content validity index (I-CVI) was calculated.
    UNASSIGNED: The module includes questions about pain, kinesiophobia and joint stiffness. For all three questions, 94% of the patients found these questions important for patients with OA. The I-CVI scores of the healthcare professionals ranged from 1.0 (pain, kinesiophobia) to 0.75 (joint stiffness).
    UNASSIGNED: A novel, condition-specific OA module is developed for the ABCC-tool, as a supplement to the generic questions. The module includes three questions, to measure OA specific complaints. This novel module is intended to make the ABCC-tool more elaborate and useable for a larger population.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    全球范围内,妊娠期高血压疾病的发病率,尤其是先兆子痫,仍然很高,特别是在低收入和中等收入国家。不良的孕产妇和围产期结局的负担对于在足月远处(<34周)发展为高血压疾病的妇女尤其高。并行,许多妇女的护理体验欠佳。在提供和经验方面提高护理质量,有必要以促进尊重产妇护理的方式支持风险沟通和治疗决策。我们的研究目标是共同创建一个工具(套件)来支持临床决策,与相关利益相关者沟通先兆子痫的风险和共同决策,包括尊重产妇的护理,正义,和公平原则。这项定性研究详细介绍了共同创造的探索阶段,历时17个月(2021年11月至2024年3月),在加纳大阿克拉和东部地区进行。根据人种学对护理互动的观察,深入访谈和焦点小组和小组讨论,该工具(套件)将与患有妊娠高血压疾病的幸存者和妇女及其家人一起开发,卫生专业人员,政策制定者,和研究人员。该工具(套件)将包括三个组成部分:定量预测风险(基于外部验证的风险模型或不利结果的绝对风险),风险沟通,和共享决策支持。我们希望共同创建一个用户友好的工具(工具包),以提高远离足月的先兆子痫妇女的护理质量,这将有助于更好的孕产妇和围产期健康结果以及加纳妇女更好的产妇护理经验。
    在足月远(<34周)发生先兆子痫的妇女中,不良的孕产妇和围产期结局很高。为了提高提供护理的质量和经验,有必要支持风险和治疗决定的沟通,以促进尊重产妇的护理。本文介绍了用于共同创建用户友好工具(工具包)的方法,以支持在资源匮乏的严重先兆子痫的情况下进行风险沟通和共享决策。
    Globally, the incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, especially preeclampsia, remains high, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes is particularly high for women who develop a hypertensive disorder remote from term (<34 weeks). In parallel, many women have a suboptimal experience of care. To improve the quality of care in terms of provision and experience, there is a need to support the communication of risks and making of treatment decision in ways that promote respectful maternity care. Our study objective is to co-create a tool(kit) to support clinical decision-making, communication of risks and shared decision-making in preeclampsia with relevant stakeholders, incorporating respectful maternity care, justice, and equity principles. This qualitative study detailing the exploratory phase of co-creation takes place over 17 months (Nov 2021-March 2024) in the Greater Accra and Eastern Regions of Ghana. Informed by ethnographic observations of care interactions, in-depth interviews and focus group and group discussions, the tool(kit) will be developed with survivors and women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and their families, health professionals, policy makers, and researchers. The tool(kit) will consist of three components: quantitative predicted risk (based on external validated risk models or absolute risk of adverse outcomes), risk communication, and shared decision-making support. We expect to co-create a user-friendly tool(kit) to improve the quality of care for women with preeclampsia remote from term which will contribute to better maternal and perinatal health outcomes as well as better maternity care experience for women in Ghana.
    Adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes is high for women who develop preeclampsia remote from term (<34 weeks). To improve the quality of provision and experience of care, there is a need to support communication of risks and treatment decisions that promotes respectful maternity care.This article describes the methodology deployed to cocreate a user-friendly tool(kit) to support risk communication and shared decision-making in the context of severe preeclampsia in a low resource setting.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:评估患者和医疗保健专业人员在原发性乳腺癌辅助系统治疗共同决策中的信息和沟通重点,并据此确定关键决策相关信息。
    方法:患者(N=122)和与乳腺癌患者一起工作的专业人员(N=118),其中38名是执业护士和32名护士,是使用便利抽样招募的,并调查了对决策至关重要的信息/通信方面,使用排名作业。我们进一步提出了一个简单的开放性问题,关于接收基于人群的统计数据与关于治疗结果的个性化统计数据的问题,以及他们对共同决策的态度和经验。使用描述性分析和定性分析对数据进行分析。
    结果:患者和专业人员都优先考虑有关治疗结果的信息(即,生存,复发)作为患者的关键决策相关信息。患者优先考虑有关相对严重的治疗副作用和晚期影响的信息(例如,血块,stroke),而专业人员优先考虑相对经常发生的影响的信息(例如,脱发,疲劳)。患者特别想知道治疗的好处是否值得负面影响。两组都将个性化统计数据优先于基于人口的统计数据。
    结论:患者和专业人员之间在信息和沟通优先级方面存在一些差异,特别与不同的副作用有关。在有关辅助系统治疗的共同决策中,精确解决这些副作用似乎值得。此外,如果治疗的预期益处值得对个体患者产生潜在的负面影响,那么共同思考这个问题似乎很重要.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly.
    METHODS: Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis.
    RESULTS: Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics.
    CONCLUSIONS: Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:近年来,医学各个领域的决策支持工具已经出现,以帮助临床医生和患者在共同决策过程中。本范围审查旨在确定用于选择下肢动脉疾病治疗的现有决策支持工具,并评估其在促进共同决策方面的有效性。
    方法:遵循PRISMA范围审查指南。在MEDLINE进行了文献检索,EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,连同决策辅助图书馆清单,2000年1月至2023年6月发表的研究。包括报告针对下肢动脉疾病的决策支持工具的开发和/或临床应用的文章。对结果进行了叙述性综合,并以表格形式呈现了发现。
    结果:纳入了五项研究和五项独特的决策支持工具。呈现格式包括网站,小册子,小册子和口袋卡。总的来说,在所有格式的决策支持工具中都观察到高度的异质性,内容和交付。在患者和临床医生中报告了广泛的可接受性和满意度。然而,由于缺乏标准化的结果指标,它们在改善共同决策方面的效果仍然不确定。
    结论:下肢动脉疾病治疗决策支持工具的开发和实施讨论仍处于早期阶段。这篇综述为未来的研究奠定了基础,以继续探索决策支持工具开发的最佳策略及其在支持共享决策中的作用。
    BACKGROUND: In recent years, decision support tools (DSTs) in various fields of medicine have emerged to aid clinicians and patients in the process of shared decision-making (SDM). This scoping review aims to identify the existing DSTs for selecting treatments in lower extremity arterial disease and to evaluate their effectiveness in facilitating SDM.
    METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews were followed. A literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, along with the Decision Aid Library Inventory, for studies published between January 2000 and June 2023. Articles reporting the development and/or clinical application of a DST specific to lower extremity arterial disease were included. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed and findings were presented in tabular formats.
    RESULTS: Five studies and 5 unique DSTs were included. Presenting formats included websites, booklets, brochures, and pocket cards. Overall, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed across all DSTs in their format, content, and delivery. A widespread acceptability and satisfaction were reported among patients and clinicians. However, their effect at improving SDM remains uncertain due to the lack of standardized outcome metrics.
    CONCLUSIONS: The development and implementation of DSTs for lower limb arterial disease treatment discussion remain in the early stages. This review lays the foundation for future studies to continue exploring optimal strategies for DST development and their role in supporting SDM.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    确定现有阿片类药物使用障碍药物的典型剂量,例如可注射阿片类激动剂治疗(iOAT),可以支持客户和程序的需求,并可能增加iOAT的扩展。一项队列研究参与者的纵向数据(n=131),我们使用2014年8月至2020年4月的临床配药记录来检查医生处方以及使用剂量的注射用二乙酰吗啡和氢吗啡酮.剂量组,按每次疗程的药物和处方剂量计算,为氢吗啡酮和二乙酰吗啡产生。在研究期间,129名参与者共登记了534、522次注射。平均接受二乙酰吗啡的剂量范围为每天106至989毫克,大多数客户每次使用125-262毫克(平均192.99毫克),每天参加2.40次会议。平均接受氢吗啡酮剂量范围为每天51.09至696.06毫克,大多数人每节使用88-154毫克(平均121.32毫克;2.43个疗程)。平均每日剂量保持稳定,虽然中等剂量是最典型的,参与者使用了整个允许剂量处方。支持iOAT典型剂量的证据可以整合到计划计划中,以更好地允许提供者和处方者预测计划需求并参与个性化护理。
    Identifying typical doses of existing opioid use disorder medications, such as injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), can support client and program needs, and potentially increase iOAT expansion. Longitudinal data from participants in a cohort study (n = 131), along with clinic dispensation records from August 2014 to April 2020, were used to examine physician prescribed as well as used doses of injectable diacetylmorphine and hydromorphone. Dosage groups, by medication and prescribed dose per session, were created for both hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine. A total of 534, 522 injections were registered during the study period among 129 participants. Mean received diacetylmorphine doses ranged from 106 to 989 mg per day, with most clients using 125-262 mg per session (mean 192.99 mg) and attending 2.40 sessions per day. Mean received hydromorphone doses ranged from 51.09 to 696.06 mg per day, with the majority using 88-154 mg per session (mean 121.32 mg; 2.43 sessions). Average daily doses remained stable overtime and, while mid-range doses were most typical, participants used the whole spectrum of allowable dose prescriptions. Evidence supporting typical doses of iOAT can be integrated into program planning to better allow providers and prescribers to anticipate program needs and engage in individualized care.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    COVID-19大流行给医疗保健系统带来了独特的挑战。过度拥挤的单位,极端疾病的严重程度,不确定的预测,对供应商的不信任导致了传统沟通策略往往不足的“高压锅”。
    在经过充分研究的传统交流干预措施的基础上,神经生物学原理被用于创建在COVID-ICU中设计的新型沟通策略,以在高度不信任的背景下响应患者的独特沟通需求.
    沟通需求的层次结构认识到在高情感和低信任环境中必不可少的三个特定沟通级别。第一个层次是建立信任。第二层是与患者的情绪产生共鸣,有助于减少唤醒和提高同理心。第三层次包括披露预后信息和共享决策的更传统内容。面对沟通挑战时,临床医生被教导回到一个水平,重新调整情绪和/或重建信任.
    COVID大流行揭示了主要认知沟通方式的缺点。沟通需求的层次强调建立信任,和情感共鸣作为有效认知讨论的先决条件,导致更有效的临床医生与患者的沟通,更充分地融入文化谦逊,更好地满足不同患者人群的需求。需要更多的研究来进一步发展这一策略,并评估其对患者体验和结果的影响。
    UNASSIGNED: The COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges for health care systems. Overcrowded units, extreme illness severity, uncertain prognoses, and mistrust in providers resulted in a \"pressure cooker\" where traditional communication strategies were often insufficient.
    UNASSIGNED: Building on well-studied traditional communication interventions, neurobiology principles were used to create a novel communication strategy designed in the COVID-ICU to respond to the unique communication needs of patients within the context of a high mistrust setting.
    UNASSIGNED: The hierarchy of communication needs recognizes three specific levels of communication that are essential within high-emotion and low-trust settings. The first level is to establish trust. The second level is to resonate with patients\' emotions, helping to reduce arousal and improve empathy. The third level includes the more traditional content of disclosing prognostic information and shared decision-making. When facing communication challenges, clinicians are taught to move back a level and reattune to emotions and/or reestablish trust.
    UNASSIGNED: The COVID pandemic revealed the shortcomings of a primarily cognitive communication style. The hierarchy of communication needs emphasizes trust building, and emotional resonance as prerequisites of effective cognitive discussions, resulting in more effective clinician-patient communication that more fully incorporates cultural humility and better meets the needs of diverse patient populations. Additional research is needed to further develop this strategy and evaluate its impact on patient experience and outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本文探讨了精神保健专业人员在平衡精神障碍治疗与促进患者福祉和繁荣方面面临的困境。随着越来越多的人呼吁更明确地关注患者在精神医疗领域的繁荣,我们解决了两个相互关联的挑战:在定义积极心理健康和繁荣方面缺乏共识,以及专业人士应该如何回应患者对什么是有益的有争议的观点。我们讨论了医疗保健提供者和患者之间的关系动态,提出“自由”的方法可以提供一个务实的框架,以解决繁荣导向的心理健康背景下关于幸福的分歧。我们承认对这些方法的批评,包括潜在的意外家长制和不信任。为了减轻这些风险,最后,我们提出了一种机制,以最大程度地减少意外家长制的可能性,并促进患者的信任。
    This paper explores the dilemma faced by mental healthcare professionals in balancing treatment of mental disorders with promoting patient well-being and flourishing. With growing calls for a more explicit focus on patient flourishing in mental healthcare, we address two inter-related challenges: the lack of consensus on defining positive mental health and flourishing, and how professionals should respond to patients with controversial views on what is good for them. We discuss the relationship dynamics between healthcare providers and patients, proposing that \'liberal\' approaches can provide a pragmatic framework to address disagreements about well-being in the context of flourishing-oriented mental healthcare. We acknowledge the criticisms of these approaches, including the potential for unintended paternalism and distrust. To mitigate these risks, we conclude by suggesting a mechanism to minimize the likelihood of unintended paternalism and foster patient trust.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目标:随着西方世界移民社区的增加,迫切需要解决语言障碍,和整个健康差距。对英语水平有限的患者(LEP)的研究集中在患者对办公室就诊的看法上,然而,对医疗保健提供者使用口译服务进行医疗访问的观点知之甚少。我们旨在开发实用的简短问卷,以评估提供者对LEP患者门诊就诊时沟通质量的看法。在横断面研究(n=99)中,使用具有oblimin旋转的主成分分析(PCA)对问卷进行了验证。使用Cronbachα分析内部一致性。
    结果:基于理论和文献,开发了一个包含7个项目的量表,该量表捕获了两个相关概念:(1)咨询期间的提供者-患者互动和(2)感知的翻译质量。问卷用于评估99次LEP咨询,并在临床环境中证明了良好的可行性。PCA揭示了两个基于理论的分量,具有良好的因子载荷和α=0.77的内部一致性。这些初步结果表明,问卷为医疗专业人员提供了一种经过验证的工具来评估LEP患者的遭遇。在较大样本中,有必要对提供者评估的语言解释咨询质量(PQC-LI)进行进一步的确认验证。
    OBJECTIVE: With the growing immigrant communities in the western world, there is an urgent need to address language barriers to care, and health disparities as a whole. Studies on limited English proficiency patients (LEP) have focused on patient perspectives of office visits, however little is known about health care provider perspectives of medical visits using interpretive services. We aimed to develop a pragmatic brief questionnaire for assessing providers\' views of the quality of communication in outpatient visits with patients with LEP. The questionnaire was validated in a cross-sectional study (n = 99) using principal component analyses (PCA) with oblimin rotation. Internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach\'s alpha.
    RESULTS: Based on theory and literature, a seven-item scale was developed that captures two relevant concepts: (1) Provider - patient interaction during the consultation and (2) perceived quality of translation. The questionnaire was used to assess 99 LEP consultations and demonstrated good feasibility in a clinical setting. PCA revealed the two theory-based components with good factor loadings and internal consistency of α = 0.77. These preliminary results indicate that the questionnaire provides medical professionals with a validated tool to evaluate LEP patient encounters. Further confirmatory validation of the Provider-assessed Quality of Consultations with Language Interpretation (PQC-LI) in larger samples is warranted.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:有效的人际沟通对于共享决策(SDM)至关重要。先前的SDM肾脏病沟通培训缺乏根据人种学分析SDM与考虑终末期肾脏疾病(ESKD)治疗方案的老年患者的相互作用的特定上下文证据。本研究探讨了肾脏病学SDM讨论中的沟通策略,特别关注考虑透析作为肾脏替代疗法(KRT)的老年患者。
    方法:我们进行了一项定性研究,分析了澳大利亚肾脏医生之间自然发生的录音记录的临床相互作用(n=12),60岁以上的患者,和照顾者。语言民族志和面向社会的定性功能方法被用于分析。
    结果:出现了两种类型的沟通策略:(1)管理和推进治疗决策:涉及积极检查知识,对选项的明确解释,和本地问题解决方案。(2)拉回:通过混合消息传递推迟或延迟决策。特别是对于非英语患者,撤退的进一步特点是推迟决策的沟通挑战,包括无效的问题管理,和依赖家庭作为口译员。当涉及到关于KRT的决策时,年龄不是参与者之间讨论的明确话题,但与治疗决策高度相关。医生似乎不愿提出非透析保守管理,即使它在临床上看起来合适。保守的照顾,KRT的替代方案适用于患有合并症的老年患者,只有在患者或护理人员提示时才明确讨论。
    结论:研究结果强调了不同的沟通策略对肾脏病学SDM讨论的影响。这项研究要求进行语言知情的情境化沟通培训,并为老年患者中针对KRT的SDM中特定于肾脏病学的沟通技能培训提供了基础证据。迫切需要医生在讨论非透析保守管理时变得自信和胜任。进一步的国际研究应探索肾病学中自然发生的SDM与其他弱势群体的相互作用,以加强证据和培训整合。
    Effective interpersonal communication is critical for shared decision-making (SDM). Previous SDM communication training in nephrology has lacked context-specific evidence from ethnographic analysis of SDM interactions with older patients considering treatment options of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study explores communication strategies in SDM discussions in nephrology, specifically focusing on older patients considering dialysis as kidney replacement therapy (KRT).
    We conducted a qualitative study analysing naturally-occurring audio-recorded clinical interactions (n = 12) between Australian kidney doctors, patients aged 60+, and carers. Linguistic ethnography and qualitative socially-oriented functional approaches were used for analysis.
    Two types of communication strategies emerged: (1) Managing and advancing treatment decisions: involving active checking of knowledge, clear explanations of options, and local issue resolution. (2) Pulling back: Deferring or delaying decisions through mixed messaging. Specifically for non-English speaking patients, pulling back was further characterised by communication challenges deferring decision-making including ineffective issue management, and reliance on family as interpreters. Age was not an explicit topic of discussion among participants when it came to making decisions about KRT but was highly relevant to treatment decision-making. Doctors appeared reluctant to broach non-dialysis conservative management, even when it appears clinically appropriate. Conservative care, an alternative to KRT suitable for older patients with co-morbidities, was only explicitly discussed when prompted by patients or carers.
    The findings highlight the impact of different communication strategies on SDM discussions in nephrology. This study calls for linguistic-informed contextualised communication training and provides foundational evidence for nephrology-specific communication skills training in SDM for KRT among older patients. There is urgent need for doctors to become confident and competent in discussing non-dialysis conservative management. Further international research should explore naturally-occurring SDM interactions in nephrology with other vulnerable groups to enhance evidence and training integration.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:实施精准医学很可能对临床癌症护理产生巨大影响,而医患关系是癌症治疗的一个关键方面,需要保留。本系统综述旨在阐明有关实施精准医疗将如何影响癌症护理中的医患关系的看法和担忧,以便解决对医患关系的威胁。
    方法:电子数据库(Pubmed,Scopus,WebofScience,社会科学高级合集)搜索了2010年1月至2021年12月发表的文章,包括定性,定量,和理论方法。两名审稿人完成了标题和摘要筛选,全文筛选,和数据提取。使用叙事综合对研究结果进行了总结和解释。
    结果:从所包含的文章中产生了四个主题(n=35)。提供信息解决了信息传输和需求的问题,以及复杂的概念,如遗传学和不确定性。在信任关系中做出决定解决了不透明问题,信任的作用,以及医生对精准医学工具在决策中的作用的态度。管理不合格患者的负面反应可解决患者对精准医疗的未满足期望。在临床和研究之间模糊的界限中,相互冲突的角色解决了医生作为医生和研究人员的双重角色所产生的问题。
    结论:许多发现以前已经在医患沟通和临床遗传学中得到了解决。然而,精准医学增加了这些领域的复杂性,并进一步强调了在特定主题上进行清晰交流的重要性,例如基因组和基因表达之间的区别以及患者对获取的期望,资格,有效性,和靶向治疗的副作用。
    The implementation of precision medicine is likely to have a huge impact on clinical cancer care, while the doctor-patient relationship is a crucial aspect of cancer care that needs to be preserved. This systematic review aimed to map out perceptions and concerns regarding how the implementation of precision medicine will impact the doctor-patient relationship in cancer care so that threats against the doctor-patient relationship can be addressed.
    Electronic databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection) were searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2021, including qualitative, quantitative, and theoretical methods. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Findings were summarized and explained using narrative synthesis.
    Four themes were generated from the included articles (n = 35). Providing information addresses issues of information transmission and needs, and of complex concepts such as genetics and uncertainty. Making decisions in a trustful relationship addresses opacity issues, the role of trust, and and physicians\' attitude towards the role of precision medicine tools in decision-making. Managing negative reactions of non-eligible patients addresses patients\' unmet expectations of precision medicine. Conflicting roles in the blurry line between clinic and research addresses issues stemming from physicians\' double role as doctors and researchers.
    Many findings have previously been addressed in doctor-patient communication and clinical genetics. However, precision medicine adds complexity to these fields and further emphasizes the importance of clear communication on specific themes like the distinction between genomic and gene expression and patients\' expectations about access, eligibility, effectiveness, and side effects of targeted therapies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号