L Ebony Boulware, George J Barnes, Renee F Wilson, Karran Phillips, Kenric Maynor, Constance Hwang, Spyridon Marinopoulos, Dan Merenstein, Patricia Richardson-McKenzie, Eric B Bass, Neil R Powe, Gail L Daumit
{"title":"定期运行状况评估的值。","authors":"L Ebony Boulware, George J Barnes, Renee F Wilson, Karran Phillips, Kenric Maynor, Constance Hwang, Spyridon Marinopoulos, Dan Merenstein, Patricia Richardson-McKenzie, Eric B Bass, Neil R Powe, Gail L Daumit","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically review evidence on definitions of the periodic health evaluation (PHE), its associated benefits and harms, and system-level interventions to improve its delivery.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Electronic searches in MEDLINE, and other databases; hand searching of 24 journals and bibliographies through February 2006.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Paired investigators abstracted data and judged study quality using standard criteria. We reported effect sizes for mean differences and proportions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We adapted GRADE Working Group criteria to assess quantity, quality and consistency of the best evidence pertaining to each outcome, assigning grades of \"high,\" \"medium,\" \"low,\" or \"very low.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 36 identified studies (11 RCTs), definitions of the PHE varied widely. In studies assessing benefits, the PHE consistently improved (over usual care) the delivery/receipt of the gynecological exam/Pap smear (2 RCTs, small effect (Cohen's d (95% confidence interval (CI)):0.07 (0.07,0.07)) to large effect (Cohen's d (CI):1.71 (1.69, 1.73)), strength and consistency graded \"high\"); cholesterol screening (1 RCT, small effect (Cohen's d (CI):0.02 (0.00,0.04)) with large associations in 4 observational studies, graded \"medium\"); fecal occult blood testing (2 RCTs, large effects (Cohen's d (CI): 1.19 (1.17, 1.21) and 1.07 (1.05, 1.08)), graded \"high\"). Effects of the PHE were mixed among studies assessing delivery/receipt of counseling (graded \"low\"), immunizations (graded \"medium\"), and mammography (graded \"low\"). In one RCT, the PHE led to a smaller increase in patient \"worry\" (13%) compared to usual care (23%) (graded \"medium\"). The PHE had mixed effects on serum cholesterol (graded \"low\"), blood pressure, body mass index, disease detection, health habits and health status (graded \"medium\"), hospitalization (graded \"high\"), and costs, disability, and mortality (graded \"medium\"). No studies assessed harms. Delivery of the PHE was improved by scheduling of appointments for PHE (1 RCT, medium effects (Cohen's d (CI): 0.69 (0.68, 0.70)) and offering a free PHE (1 non-RCT, 22% increase) (graded \"medium\").</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence suggests delivery of some recommended preventive services are improved by the PHE and may be more directly affected by the PHE than intermediate or long-term clinical outcomes and costs. Descriptions of the PHE and outcomes were heterogeneous, and some trials were performed before dissemination of recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, limiting interpretations of findings. Efforts are needed to clarify the long-term benefits of receiving multiple preventive services in the context of the PHE. Future studies assessing the PHE should incorporate diverse populations, carefully define comparisons to \"usual care,\" and comprehensively assess intermediate outcomes, harms, and costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 136","pages":"1-134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of the periodic health evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"L Ebony Boulware, George J Barnes, Renee F Wilson, Karran Phillips, Kenric Maynor, Constance Hwang, Spyridon Marinopoulos, Dan Merenstein, Patricia Richardson-McKenzie, Eric B Bass, Neil R Powe, Gail L Daumit\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically review evidence on definitions of the periodic health evaluation (PHE), its associated benefits and harms, and system-level interventions to improve its delivery.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Electronic searches in MEDLINE, and other databases; hand searching of 24 journals and bibliographies through February 2006.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Paired investigators abstracted data and judged study quality using standard criteria. We reported effect sizes for mean differences and proportions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We adapted GRADE Working Group criteria to assess quantity, quality and consistency of the best evidence pertaining to each outcome, assigning grades of \\\"high,\\\" \\\"medium,\\\" \\\"low,\\\" or \\\"very low.\\\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 36 identified studies (11 RCTs), definitions of the PHE varied widely. In studies assessing benefits, the PHE consistently improved (over usual care) the delivery/receipt of the gynecological exam/Pap smear (2 RCTs, small effect (Cohen's d (95% confidence interval (CI)):0.07 (0.07,0.07)) to large effect (Cohen's d (CI):1.71 (1.69, 1.73)), strength and consistency graded \\\"high\\\"); cholesterol screening (1 RCT, small effect (Cohen's d (CI):0.02 (0.00,0.04)) with large associations in 4 observational studies, graded \\\"medium\\\"); fecal occult blood testing (2 RCTs, large effects (Cohen's d (CI): 1.19 (1.17, 1.21) and 1.07 (1.05, 1.08)), graded \\\"high\\\"). Effects of the PHE were mixed among studies assessing delivery/receipt of counseling (graded \\\"low\\\"), immunizations (graded \\\"medium\\\"), and mammography (graded \\\"low\\\"). In one RCT, the PHE led to a smaller increase in patient \\\"worry\\\" (13%) compared to usual care (23%) (graded \\\"medium\\\"). The PHE had mixed effects on serum cholesterol (graded \\\"low\\\"), blood pressure, body mass index, disease detection, health habits and health status (graded \\\"medium\\\"), hospitalization (graded \\\"high\\\"), and costs, disability, and mortality (graded \\\"medium\\\"). No studies assessed harms. Delivery of the PHE was improved by scheduling of appointments for PHE (1 RCT, medium effects (Cohen's d (CI): 0.69 (0.68, 0.70)) and offering a free PHE (1 non-RCT, 22% increase) (graded \\\"medium\\\").</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence suggests delivery of some recommended preventive services are improved by the PHE and may be more directly affected by the PHE than intermediate or long-term clinical outcomes and costs. Descriptions of the PHE and outcomes were heterogeneous, and some trials were performed before dissemination of recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, limiting interpretations of findings. Efforts are needed to clarify the long-term benefits of receiving multiple preventive services in the context of the PHE. Future studies assessing the PHE should incorporate diverse populations, carefully define comparisons to \\\"usual care,\\\" and comprehensively assess intermediate outcomes, harms, and costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 136\",\"pages\":\"1-134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781235/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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:系统地审查定期健康评估(PHE)定义的证据,其相关的益处和危害,以及改善其提供的系统级干预措施。数据来源:MEDLINE等数据库的电子检索;截至2006年2月,手工检索了24种期刊和参考书目。回顾方法:配对调查人员提取数据,并使用标准标准判断研究质量。我们报告了随机对照试验(RCTs)中平均差异和比例的效应量。我们采用了GRADE工作组标准来评估与每个结果相关的最佳证据的数量、质量和一致性,并将其划分为“高”、“中”、“低”或“非常低”的等级。结果:在36项确定的研究(11项随机对照试验)中,PHE的定义差异很大。在评估益处的研究中,PHE持续改善(超过常规护理)妇科检查/子宫颈抹片检查的交付/接收(2项随机对照试验,小影响(Cohen's d(95%置信区间(CI)):0.07(0.07,0.07))到大影响(Cohen's d (CI):1.71(1.69, 1.73)),强度和一致性评级为“高”);胆固醇筛查(1项随机对照试验,效应小(Cohen’s d (CI):0.02(0.00,0.04)), 4项观察性研究有较大关联,分级为“中等”);粪便隐血检测(2项rct,大影响(Cohen’s d (CI): 1.19(1.17, 1.21)和1.07(1.05,1.08)),分级为“高”)。在评估提供/接受咨询(评级为“低”)、免疫(评级为“中等”)和乳房x光检查(评级为“低”)的研究中,PHE的影响是混合的。在一项随机对照试验中,与常规护理(23%)相比,PHE导致患者“担忧”(13%)的增加较小(分级为“中等”)。PHE对血清胆固醇(分级为“低”)、血压、体重指数、疾病检测、健康习惯和健康状况(分级为“中等”)、住院(分级为“高”)、成本、残疾和死亡率(分级为“中等”)有混合影响。没有研究评估其危害。通过安排PHE预约(1项随机对照试验,中等效果(Cohen’s d (CI): 0.69(0.68, 0.70))和提供免费PHE(1项非随机对照试验,增加22%)(分级为“中等”),PHE的提供得到了改善。结论:有证据表明,PHE改善了一些推荐的预防服务的提供,并且PHE可能比中期或长期临床结果和成本更直接地影响PHE。对PHE和结果的描述是异质的,一些试验是在美国预防服务工作组发布建议之前进行的,限制了对结果的解释。需要努力澄清在公共卫生部门的背景下接受多种预防服务的长期利益。未来评估PHE的研究应纳入不同的人群,仔细定义与“常规护理”的比较,并全面评估中间结果、危害和成本。
Objectives: To systematically review evidence on definitions of the periodic health evaluation (PHE), its associated benefits and harms, and system-level interventions to improve its delivery.
Data sources: Electronic searches in MEDLINE, and other databases; hand searching of 24 journals and bibliographies through February 2006.
Review methods: Paired investigators abstracted data and judged study quality using standard criteria. We reported effect sizes for mean differences and proportions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We adapted GRADE Working Group criteria to assess quantity, quality and consistency of the best evidence pertaining to each outcome, assigning grades of "high," "medium," "low," or "very low."
Results: Among 36 identified studies (11 RCTs), definitions of the PHE varied widely. In studies assessing benefits, the PHE consistently improved (over usual care) the delivery/receipt of the gynecological exam/Pap smear (2 RCTs, small effect (Cohen's d (95% confidence interval (CI)):0.07 (0.07,0.07)) to large effect (Cohen's d (CI):1.71 (1.69, 1.73)), strength and consistency graded "high"); cholesterol screening (1 RCT, small effect (Cohen's d (CI):0.02 (0.00,0.04)) with large associations in 4 observational studies, graded "medium"); fecal occult blood testing (2 RCTs, large effects (Cohen's d (CI): 1.19 (1.17, 1.21) and 1.07 (1.05, 1.08)), graded "high"). Effects of the PHE were mixed among studies assessing delivery/receipt of counseling (graded "low"), immunizations (graded "medium"), and mammography (graded "low"). In one RCT, the PHE led to a smaller increase in patient "worry" (13%) compared to usual care (23%) (graded "medium"). The PHE had mixed effects on serum cholesterol (graded "low"), blood pressure, body mass index, disease detection, health habits and health status (graded "medium"), hospitalization (graded "high"), and costs, disability, and mortality (graded "medium"). No studies assessed harms. Delivery of the PHE was improved by scheduling of appointments for PHE (1 RCT, medium effects (Cohen's d (CI): 0.69 (0.68, 0.70)) and offering a free PHE (1 non-RCT, 22% increase) (graded "medium").
Conclusions: The evidence suggests delivery of some recommended preventive services are improved by the PHE and may be more directly affected by the PHE than intermediate or long-term clinical outcomes and costs. Descriptions of the PHE and outcomes were heterogeneous, and some trials were performed before dissemination of recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, limiting interpretations of findings. Efforts are needed to clarify the long-term benefits of receiving multiple preventive services in the context of the PHE. Future studies assessing the PHE should incorporate diverse populations, carefully define comparisons to "usual care," and comprehensively assess intermediate outcomes, harms, and costs.