首页> 外文期刊>Medical decision making: An international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making >Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial
【24h】

Risk Stratification and Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial

机译:大肠癌筛查的风险分层和共同决策:一项随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background. Eliciting patient preferences within the context of shared decision making has been advocated for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet providers often fail to comply with patient preferences that differ from their own. Purpose. To determine whether risk stratification for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) influences provider willingness to comply with patient preferences when selecting a desired CRC screening option. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Setting/Participants. Asymptomatic, average-risk patients due for CRC screening in an urban safety net health care setting. Intervention. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a decision aid alone (n = 168) or decision aid plus risk assessment (n = 173) arm between September 2012 and September 2014. Outcomes. The primary outcome was concordance between patient preference and test ordered; secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, test completion rates, and provider satisfaction. Results. Although providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in selecting an appropriate screening test for their average-risk patients, no significant differences in concordance were observed between the decision aid alone and decision aid plus risk assessment groups (88.1% v. 85.0%, P = 0.40) or high- and low-risk groups (84.5% v. 87.1%, P = 0.51). Concordance was highest for colonoscopy and relatively low for tests other than colonoscopy, regardless of study arm or risk group. Failure to comply with patient preferences was negatively associated with satisfaction with the decision-making process, screening intentions, and test completion rates. Limitations. Single-institution setting; lack of provider education about the utility of risk stratification into their decision making. Conclusions. Providers perceived risk stratification to be useful in their decision making but often failed to comply with patient preferences for tests other than colonoscopy, even among those deemed to be at low risk of ACN.
机译:背景。在大肠癌(CRC)筛查中一直主张在共同决策的背景下消除患者的偏爱,但是提供者常常不能遵守与他们自己不同的患者偏爱。目的。为了确定晚期结直肠肿瘤(ACN)的风险分层是否会影响提供者在选择所需的CRC筛查选项时遵守患者偏好的意愿。设计。随机对照试验。设置/参与者。在城市安全网医疗机构中无症状,平均风险的患者应进行CRC筛查。介入。在2012年9月至2014年9月之间,将患者按1:1的比例随机分配至单独的决策辅助(n = 168)或决策辅助加风险评估(n = 173)。结果。主要结果是患者偏好和测试顺序之间的一致性。次要结果包括患者对决策过程的满意度,筛查意向,测试完成率和提供者满意度。结果。尽管提供者认为风险分层有助于为其平均风险患者选择适当的筛查测试,但仅决策援助与决策援助加风险评估组之间在一致性方面未观察到显着差异(88.1%对85.0%,P = 0.40)或高风险和低风险组(84.5%对87.1%,P = 0.51)。结肠镜检查的一致性最高,而结肠镜检查以外的其他测试的一致性较低,而与研究组或风险组无关。不遵守患者偏好会与对决策过程,筛查意图和测试完成率的满意度负相关。局限性。单机构设置;缺乏对风险分层在其决策中的作用的提供者教育。结论提供者认为风险分层在他们的决策中很有用,但常常不遵守患者对结肠镜检查以外的检查的偏爱,即使是那些被认为具有较低ACN风险的人也是如此。

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