Patient education and counseling · 2008
Concise evaluation of decision aids.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stalmeier Peep F M, Roosmalen Marielle S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Decision aids purport to help patients make treatment related choices. Several instruments exist to evaluate decision aids. Our aim is to compare the responsiveness of several instruments.
METHODS: Two different decision aids were randomized in patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Treatment choices were between prophylactic surgery and screening. Effect sizes were calculated to compare the responsiveness of the measures.
RESULTS: One decision aid was randomized in 390 women, the other in 91 ensuing mutation carriers. Three factors were identified related to Information, Well-being and Decision Making. Within each factor, single item measures were as responsive as multi-item measures.
CONCLUSION: Four single items, 'the amount of information received for decision making,' 'strength of preference,' 'I weighed the pros and cons,' and 'General Health,' were adequately responsive to the decision aids.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These items might be considered for inclusion in questionnaires to evaluate decision aids.
METHODS: Two different decision aids were randomized in patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Treatment choices were between prophylactic surgery and screening. Effect sizes were calculated to compare the responsiveness of the measures.
RESULTS: One decision aid was randomized in 390 women, the other in 91 ensuing mutation carriers. Three factors were identified related to Information, Well-being and Decision Making. Within each factor, single item measures were as responsive as multi-item measures.
CONCLUSION: Four single items, 'the amount of information received for decision making,' 'strength of preference,' 'I weighed the pros and cons,' and 'General Health,' were adequately responsive to the decision aids.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These items might be considered for inclusion in questionnaires to evaluate decision aids.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultBreast NeoplasmsChoice BehaviorDecision Support TechniquesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLife ExpectancyMiddle AgedNetherlandsPamphletsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionPrognosisQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesVideotape Recording