在常规临床护理过程中评估全人结果:快速范围审查。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Care Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046
Nicholas J Parr, Sarah Young, Becky Baltich Nelson
{"title":"在常规临床护理过程中评估全人结果:快速范围审查。","authors":"Nicholas J Parr, Sarah Young, Becky Baltich Nelson","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and describe research conducted on the implementation, validity, and utility of whole-person outcome measures administered during routine inpatient or outpatient care.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating information about patients' overall health, health-related quality of life, and global well-being into health care delivery has the potential to increase referral rates, enhance doctor-patient communication, and improve the detection of untreated symptoms. Assessment of these whole-person outcomes during routine clinical care is of broad interest to health care providers and health systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a scoping review design and searched Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant English-language primary studies and systematic reviews published through November 13, 2023. Screening for inclusion and data abstraction were conducted by 1 investigator then checked by another. Study risks of bias and the strength of available evidence were not assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1327 potentially relevant publications, 44 primary studies and 5 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Assessment of global well-being was comparatively less researched than overall health or health-related quality of life. Available research provided a range of perspectives on the performance, feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and clinical utility of whole-person outcome measures. No studies reported change in patient health or disease outcomes attributed to whole person outcome assessment (directly or through changes to care delivery).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Currently available evidence provides insights about the performance and implementation of whole-person outcome measures during routine clinical care, but no studies are available that examine the impact of assessing whole-person outcomes on clinical or patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":18364,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care","volume":"62 12 Suppl 1","pages":"S34-S42"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11548827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Whole-Person Outcomes During Routine Clinical Care: A Rapid Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas J Parr, Sarah Young, Becky Baltich Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To identify and describe research conducted on the implementation, validity, and utility of whole-person outcome measures administered during routine inpatient or outpatient care.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Incorporating information about patients' overall health, health-related quality of life, and global well-being into health care delivery has the potential to increase referral rates, enhance doctor-patient communication, and improve the detection of untreated symptoms. Assessment of these whole-person outcomes during routine clinical care is of broad interest to health care providers and health systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a scoping review design and searched Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant English-language primary studies and systematic reviews published through November 13, 2023. Screening for inclusion and data abstraction were conducted by 1 investigator then checked by another. Study risks of bias and the strength of available evidence were not assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1327 potentially relevant publications, 44 primary studies and 5 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Assessment of global well-being was comparatively less researched than overall health or health-related quality of life. Available research provided a range of perspectives on the performance, feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and clinical utility of whole-person outcome measures. No studies reported change in patient health or disease outcomes attributed to whole person outcome assessment (directly or through changes to care delivery).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Currently available evidence provides insights about the performance and implementation of whole-person outcome measures during routine clinical care, but no studies are available that examine the impact of assessing whole-person outcomes on clinical or patient outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Care\",\"volume\":\"62 12 Suppl 1\",\"pages\":\"S34-S42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11548827/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002046","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定并描述在常规住院或门诊护理期间实施的全人结果测量的实施情况、有效性和实用性:确定并描述在常规住院或门诊护理期间实施的全人结果测量的实施、有效性和实用性方面的研究:背景:将患者的总体健康状况、与健康相关的生活质量以及整体幸福感等信息纳入医疗保健服务,有可能提高转诊率、加强医患沟通并改善对未治疗症状的检测。在常规临床护理过程中对这些全人结果进行评估是医疗服务提供者和医疗系统的广泛兴趣所在:我们采用了概括性综述设计,并检索了 Ovid MEDLINE、APA PsycINFO 和 CINAHL 中截至 2023 年 11 月 13 日发表的相关英语主要研究和系统性综述。纳入筛选和数据摘录由一名研究人员进行,然后由另一名研究人员进行检查。未对研究的偏倚风险和可用证据的强度进行评估:在 1327 篇可能相关的出版物中,44 篇主要研究和 5 篇系统综述符合资格标准。与整体健康或与健康相关的生活质量相比,对全球幸福感评估的研究相对较少。现有研究对全人结果测量的性能、可行性、可接受性、实施和临床效用提供了不同的观点。没有研究报告称全人结果评估(直接或通过改变护理服务)改变了患者的健康或疾病结果:目前现有的证据提供了有关在常规临床护理过程中实施全人结果测量的见解,但尚无研究探讨全人结果评估对临床或患者预后的影响。
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
Assessing Whole-Person Outcomes During Routine Clinical Care: A Rapid Scoping Review.

Objective: To identify and describe research conducted on the implementation, validity, and utility of whole-person outcome measures administered during routine inpatient or outpatient care.

Background: Incorporating information about patients' overall health, health-related quality of life, and global well-being into health care delivery has the potential to increase referral rates, enhance doctor-patient communication, and improve the detection of untreated symptoms. Assessment of these whole-person outcomes during routine clinical care is of broad interest to health care providers and health systems.

Methods: We employed a scoping review design and searched Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant English-language primary studies and systematic reviews published through November 13, 2023. Screening for inclusion and data abstraction were conducted by 1 investigator then checked by another. Study risks of bias and the strength of available evidence were not assessed.

Results: Of 1327 potentially relevant publications, 44 primary studies and 5 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Assessment of global well-being was comparatively less researched than overall health or health-related quality of life. Available research provided a range of perspectives on the performance, feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and clinical utility of whole-person outcome measures. No studies reported change in patient health or disease outcomes attributed to whole person outcome assessment (directly or through changes to care delivery).

Conclusions: Currently available evidence provides insights about the performance and implementation of whole-person outcome measures during routine clinical care, but no studies are available that examine the impact of assessing whole-person outcomes on clinical or patient outcomes.

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
相关文献
二甲双胍通过HDAC6和FoxO3a转录调控肌肉生长抑制素诱导肌肉萎缩
IF 8.9 1区 医学Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and MusclePub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12833
Min Ju Kang, Ji Wook Moon, Jung Ok Lee, Ji Hae Kim, Eun Jeong Jung, Su Jin Kim, Joo Yeon Oh, Sang Woo Wu, Pu Reum Lee, Sun Hwa Park, Hyeon Soo Kim
具有疾病敏感单倍型的非亲属供体脐带血移植后的1型糖尿病
IF 3.2 3区 医学Journal of Diabetes InvestigationPub Date : 2022-11-02 DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13939
Kensuke Matsumoto, Taisuke Matsuyama, Ritsu Sumiyoshi, Matsuo Takuji, Tadashi Yamamoto, Ryosuke Shirasaki, Haruko Tashiro
封面:蛋白质组学分析确定IRSp53和fastin是PRV输出和直接细胞-细胞传播的关键
IF 3.4 4区 生物学ProteomicsPub Date : 2019-12-02 DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201970201
Fei-Long Yu, Huan Miao, Jinjin Xia, Fan Jia, Huadong Wang, Fuqiang Xu, Lin Guo
来源期刊
Medical Care
Medical Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
228
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Rated as one of the top ten journals in healthcare administration, Medical Care is devoted to all aspects of the administration and delivery of healthcare. This scholarly journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers documenting the most current developments in the rapidly changing field of healthcare. This timely journal reports on the findings of original investigations into issues related to the research, planning, organization, financing, provision, and evaluation of health services.
期刊最新文献
Community Benefit and Tax-Exemption Levels at Non-Profit Hospitals Across US States. Using Z Codes to Document Social Risk Factors in the Electronic Health Record: A Scoping Review. Comparison of Alternative Approaches to Using Race-and-Ethnicity Data in Estimating Differences in Health Care and Social Determinants of Health. Facility-Level Differences in Antipsychotic Drug Use: Impact on Quality Outcomes for Nursing Home Residents. Knowledge of Medical Interpretation Rights Among Individuals With Non-English Language Preference: A Cross-Sectional Study.
×
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