...
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence-based nursing >Review: personalised risk communication may improve uptake of screening tests more than general risk communication
【24h】

Review: personalised risk communication may improve uptake of screening tests more than general risk communication

机译:审查:个性化风险沟通可能比一般风险沟通更能提高筛选测试的接受度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The systematic review by Edwards ef al provides insight into how different methods of communicating risks and benefits to individuals affect whether or not they subsequently uptake screening. This is in contrast to previous reviews that have focused on how more general interventions affect screening uptake.The authors used a comprehensive search strategy, clear inclusion criteria, and 2 checklists to assess methodological quality of individual studies. The results are interesting, in that increased screening uptake with PRC appears to be dependent on how PRC is presented. Communication of risk in precise numerical terms or in categories (low, medium, and high risk) resulted in lower uptake than communication of risk in more general terms. When individuals were given a list of their risk factors as the basis of discussion, but not precise values, they were more likely to uptake screening. However, a cautionary note must be added about the interpretation of these findings because of the small number of studies and the limited variety of screening programmes that were included. Only 5 of the 10 studies included in the analysis used this type of intervention, and most examined breast cancer screening.Practitioners who counsel patients about the risks and benefits of screening may find these results useful. They should be aware of the potential effects of presenting PRC in different ways and the subsequent effect this may have on screening uptake. In light of the findings of this review, further research is needed on the presentation of risk information and its effects on individual behaviour. In particular, examining whether particular types of PRC are more or less beneficial for different screening decisions may be appropriate.
机译:Edwards ef al的系统评价提供了洞悉个人风险和收益的不同方法如何影响他们随后是否接受筛查的见识。这与以往的评论相反,之前的评论集中在更一般的干预措施如何影响筛查摄取上。作者使用了全面的搜索策略,明确的纳入标准和2个清单来评估各个研究的方法学质量。结果很有趣,因为提高对PRC的筛查摄取似乎取决于PRC的呈现方式。以精确的数字术语或类别(低,中,高风险)进行风险交流比使用更笼统的术语进行风险交流导致的风险降低。当给个体列出有关其危险因素的列表作为讨论的基础,但没有确切的值时,他们更有可能接受筛查。但是,由于研究数量少且筛选方案种类有限,因此必须对这些发现的解释加注注意事项。分析中包括的10项研究中只有5项使用了这种类型的干预措施,并且大多数检查了乳腺癌筛查。向患者咨询筛查风险和益处的医生可能会发现这些结果有用。他们应该意识到以不同方式呈现PRC的潜在影响,以及这可能对筛选吸收产生的后续影响。根据本次审查的结果,需要对风险信息的呈现及其对个人行为的影响进行进一步研究。特别是,检查特定类型的PRC是否对不同的筛查决定或多或少有利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号