卫生技术评估机构的指南在社区基层医疗中的成果:一项系统性混合研究综述。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ashkan Baradaran, Raymond Tolentino, Roland Grad, Isabelle Ganache, Geneviève Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Pierre Pluye
{"title":"卫生技术评估机构的指南在社区基层医疗中的成果:一项系统性混合研究综述。","authors":"Ashkan Baradaran, Raymond Tolentino, Roland Grad, Isabelle Ganache, Geneviève Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Pierre Pluye","doi":"10.1017/S0266462324000370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations generate guidelines to inform healthcare practices toward improved health outcomes. This review sought to identify and classify outcomes of guidelines from HTA organizations within published research.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We performed a systematic mixed studies review of empirical studies that (a) referred to a published guideline from an HTA organization and (b) reported an outcome resulting from a guideline. We searched the published literature in English or French within seven databases. Outcome types were classified within five dimensions of an existing framework for online health information (e.g., relevance, cognitive/affective impact, and use). Subdimensions were inductively developed. A two-phase sequential data synthesis was performed. Phase 1: a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis identified the types of outcomes and displayed their relationships on a concept map. Phase 2: descriptive statistics were tabulated by the type of outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6,719 records were retrieved through searches on 6 February 2023. After screening, we included 120 observational studies (twenty-one qualitative, ninety-four quantitative, and five mixed methods). Phase 1 identified twenty-nine types of outcomes. The most frequently reported outcomes were within the organizational dimension (reported in ninety-four studies). The most common subdimensions were \"Referrals\" (thirty-eight occurrences), the \"Quality of Prescriptions\" (fifteen occurrences), and the \"Quality of Diagnosis\" (eight occurrences). For Phase 2, we could only generate descriptive statistics on seventeen outcomes. These were almost equally distributed among positive, neutral, and negative effects. Our results contribute to knowledge about the outcomes of HTA guidelines and options for documenting and measuring them in future evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"40 1","pages":"e56"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of guidelines from health technology assessment organizations in community-based primary care: a systematic mixed studies review.\",\"authors\":\"Ashkan Baradaran, Raymond Tolentino, Roland Grad, Isabelle Ganache, Geneviève Gore, Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi, Pierre Pluye\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462324000370\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations generate guidelines to inform healthcare practices toward improved health outcomes. This review sought to identify and classify outcomes of guidelines from HTA organizations within published research.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We performed a systematic mixed studies review of empirical studies that (a) referred to a published guideline from an HTA organization and (b) reported an outcome resulting from a guideline. We searched the published literature in English or French within seven databases. Outcome types were classified within five dimensions of an existing framework for online health information (e.g., relevance, cognitive/affective impact, and use). Subdimensions were inductively developed. A two-phase sequential data synthesis was performed. Phase 1: a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis identified the types of outcomes and displayed their relationships on a concept map. Phase 2: descriptive statistics were tabulated by the type of outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6,719 records were retrieved through searches on 6 February 2023. After screening, we included 120 observational studies (twenty-one qualitative, ninety-four quantitative, and five mixed methods). Phase 1 identified twenty-nine types of outcomes. The most frequently reported outcomes were within the organizational dimension (reported in ninety-four studies). The most common subdimensions were \\\"Referrals\\\" (thirty-eight occurrences), the \\\"Quality of Prescriptions\\\" (fifteen occurrences), and the \\\"Quality of Diagnosis\\\" (eight occurrences). For Phase 2, we could only generate descriptive statistics on seventeen outcomes. These were almost equally distributed among positive, neutral, and negative effects. Our results contribute to knowledge about the outcomes of HTA guidelines and options for documenting and measuring them in future evaluations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"e56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579698/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000370\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324000370","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:健康技术评估(HTA)机构制定指南,为医疗保健实践提供信息,以改善健康结果。本综述试图在已发表的研究中对 HTA 组织的指南成果进行识别和分类:我们对以下实证研究进行了系统的混合研究综述:(a) 提及 HTA 组织发布的指南;(b) 报告了指南产生的结果。我们在七个数据库中搜索了已发表的英文或法文文献。结果类型按照现有在线健康信息框架的五个维度(如相关性、认知/情感影响和使用)进行分类。对子维度进行了归纳。数据综合分为两个阶段。第 1 阶段:混合演绎-归纳主题分析确定了结果类型,并在概念图上显示了它们之间的关系。第二阶段:按结果类型进行描述性统计:2023 年 2 月 6 日,通过搜索共检索到 6719 条记录。经过筛选,我们收录了 120 项观察性研究(21 项定性研究、94 项定量研究和 5 项混合方法研究)。第一阶段确定了 29 种结果。最常报告的结果属于组织维度(九十四项研究报告了这一维度)。最常见的子维度是 "转诊"(38 次)、"处方质量"(15 次)和 "诊断质量"(8 次)。在第二阶段,我们只能对 17 项结果进行描述性统计。这些结果几乎平均分布在积极、中性和消极影响中。我们的结果有助于了解 HTA 指南的结果以及在未来评估中记录和衡量这些结果的方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes of guidelines from health technology assessment organizations in community-based primary care: a systematic mixed studies review.

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations generate guidelines to inform healthcare practices toward improved health outcomes. This review sought to identify and classify outcomes of guidelines from HTA organizations within published research.

Methodology: We performed a systematic mixed studies review of empirical studies that (a) referred to a published guideline from an HTA organization and (b) reported an outcome resulting from a guideline. We searched the published literature in English or French within seven databases. Outcome types were classified within five dimensions of an existing framework for online health information (e.g., relevance, cognitive/affective impact, and use). Subdimensions were inductively developed. A two-phase sequential data synthesis was performed. Phase 1: a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis identified the types of outcomes and displayed their relationships on a concept map. Phase 2: descriptive statistics were tabulated by the type of outcome.

Results: A total of 6,719 records were retrieved through searches on 6 February 2023. After screening, we included 120 observational studies (twenty-one qualitative, ninety-four quantitative, and five mixed methods). Phase 1 identified twenty-nine types of outcomes. The most frequently reported outcomes were within the organizational dimension (reported in ninety-four studies). The most common subdimensions were "Referrals" (thirty-eight occurrences), the "Quality of Prescriptions" (fifteen occurrences), and the "Quality of Diagnosis" (eight occurrences). For Phase 2, we could only generate descriptive statistics on seventeen outcomes. These were almost equally distributed among positive, neutral, and negative effects. Our results contribute to knowledge about the outcomes of HTA guidelines and options for documenting and measuring them in future evaluations.

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
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信