衡量临终关怀决策辅助工具的有效性:系统回顾

M. Courtney Hughes , Erin Vernon , Chinenye Egwuonwu , Oluwatoyosi Afolabi
{"title":"衡量临终关怀决策辅助工具的有效性:系统回顾","authors":"M. Courtney Hughes ,&nbsp;Erin Vernon ,&nbsp;Chinenye Egwuonwu ,&nbsp;Oluwatoyosi Afolabi","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To systematically review research analyzing the effectiveness of decision aids for end-of-life care, including how researchers specifically measure decision aid success.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a systematic review synthesizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study results using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Four databases were searched through February 18, 2023. Inclusion criteria required articles to evaluate end-of-life care decision aids. The review is registered under PROSPERO (#CRD42023408449).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 715 articles were initially identified, with 43 meeting the inclusion criteria. Outcome measures identified included decisional conflict, less aggressive care desired, knowledge improvements, communication improvements, tool satisfaction, patient anxiety and well-being, and less aggressive care action completed. The majority of studies reported positive outcomes especially when the decision aid development included International Patient Decision Aid Standards.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Research examining end of life care decision aid use consistently reports positive outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>This review presents data that can guide the next generation of decision aids for end-of-life care, namely using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards in developing tools and showing which tools are effective for helping to prevent the unnecessary suffering that can result when patients' dying preferences are unknown.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000219/pdfft?md5=99c3509a4725de7b72582a3e94b8c500&pid=1-s2.0-S2772628224000219-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring decision aid effectiveness for end-of-life care: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"M. Courtney Hughes ,&nbsp;Erin Vernon ,&nbsp;Chinenye Egwuonwu ,&nbsp;Oluwatoyosi Afolabi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To systematically review research analyzing the effectiveness of decision aids for end-of-life care, including how researchers specifically measure decision aid success.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a systematic review synthesizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study results using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Four databases were searched through February 18, 2023. Inclusion criteria required articles to evaluate end-of-life care decision aids. The review is registered under PROSPERO (#CRD42023408449).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 715 articles were initially identified, with 43 meeting the inclusion criteria. Outcome measures identified included decisional conflict, less aggressive care desired, knowledge improvements, communication improvements, tool satisfaction, patient anxiety and well-being, and less aggressive care action completed. The majority of studies reported positive outcomes especially when the decision aid development included International Patient Decision Aid Standards.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Research examining end of life care decision aid use consistently reports positive outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>This review presents data that can guide the next generation of decision aids for end-of-life care, namely using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards in developing tools and showing which tools are effective for helping to prevent the unnecessary suffering that can result when patients' dying preferences are unknown.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PEC innovation\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000219/pdfft?md5=99c3509a4725de7b72582a3e94b8c500&pid=1-s2.0-S2772628224000219-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PEC innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的系统回顾分析临终关怀决策辅助工具有效性的研究,包括研究人员如何具体衡量决策辅助工具的成功率。方法我们采用《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南对定量、定性和混合方法的研究结果进行了系统回顾。截至 2023 年 2 月 18 日,共检索了四个数据库。纳入标准要求文章对临终关怀决策辅助工具进行评估。该综述已在 PROSPERO 下注册(#CRD42023408449)。结果共初步确定了 715 篇文章,其中 43 篇符合纳入标准。所确定的结果衡量标准包括决策冲突、希望减少的积极护理、知识改进、沟通改进、工具满意度、患者焦虑和幸福感以及完成的积极护理行动。本综述提供的数据可为下一代临终关怀决策辅助工具提供指导,即在开发工具时使用《国际患者决策辅助标准》,并显示哪些工具可有效帮助避免患者临终偏好不明时可能导致的不必要痛苦。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring decision aid effectiveness for end-of-life care: A systematic review

Objective

To systematically review research analyzing the effectiveness of decision aids for end-of-life care, including how researchers specifically measure decision aid success.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review synthesizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods study results using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Four databases were searched through February 18, 2023. Inclusion criteria required articles to evaluate end-of-life care decision aids. The review is registered under PROSPERO (#CRD42023408449).

Results

A total of 715 articles were initially identified, with 43 meeting the inclusion criteria. Outcome measures identified included decisional conflict, less aggressive care desired, knowledge improvements, communication improvements, tool satisfaction, patient anxiety and well-being, and less aggressive care action completed. The majority of studies reported positive outcomes especially when the decision aid development included International Patient Decision Aid Standards.

Conclusion

Research examining end of life care decision aid use consistently reports positive outcomes.

Innovation

This review presents data that can guide the next generation of decision aids for end-of-life care, namely using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards in developing tools and showing which tools are effective for helping to prevent the unnecessary suffering that can result when patients' dying preferences are unknown.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
期刊最新文献
Measuring professionals' attitudes toward persistent somatic symptoms: Development, validation, and reliability of the professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS) Tech + touch: A pilot study to facilitate access to health information technology for Spanish-speaking parents Single-encounter elicitation framework for diagnostic excellence patient-reported measures: SEE-Dx-PRM The effectiveness of integrating making every contact count into an undergraduate medical curriculum How often are patients recording their healthcare consultations in Australia and why? An online survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1