在设计复杂卫生干预措施的初级保健试验时,常规护理比较者的选择和报告:系统回顾。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Shoba Dawson, Katrina Turner, Sarah Dawson, Tom Yardley, Alyson Huntley
{"title":"在设计复杂卫生干预措施的初级保健试验时,常规护理比较者的选择和报告:系统回顾。","authors":"Shoba Dawson, Katrina Turner, Sarah Dawson, Tom Yardley, Alyson Huntley","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many primary care trials evaluating complex health interventions use a 'usual care' comparator. As 'usual care' can vary across clinical sites, countries, and over time, impacting trial design and raising ethical considerations attention should be given to its content prior to a trial starting.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To understand how researchers select and describe usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A systematic review of primary care trial or feasibility study protocols.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Electronic databases were searched from 1 July 2020 to 20 June 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 83 protocols were included. A range of terms such as usual care and care as usual were used to describe usual care. The description of usual care varied significantly between protocols in terms of the level of detail provided regarding its selection and content. We categorised these descriptions according to the amount of detail they provided as: basic (72%), moderate (16%) and comprehensive (12%). Few protocols justified the content of their usual care comparator, with most simply commenting that it was based on clinical guidelines or current practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Different terms are used to describe usual care and most primary care researchers provide limited details on the section and content of their usual care comparators when publishing study protocols. This has implications for transparency and replicability, and suggests researchers continue to give limited attention to the content of usual care when designing their trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selection and reporting of usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Shoba Dawson, Katrina Turner, Sarah Dawson, Tom Yardley, Alyson Huntley\",\"doi\":\"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many primary care trials evaluating complex health interventions use a 'usual care' comparator. As 'usual care' can vary across clinical sites, countries, and over time, impacting trial design and raising ethical considerations attention should be given to its content prior to a trial starting.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To understand how researchers select and describe usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>A systematic review of primary care trial or feasibility study protocols.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Electronic databases were searched from 1 July 2020 to 20 June 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 83 protocols were included. A range of terms such as usual care and care as usual were used to describe usual care. The description of usual care varied significantly between protocols in terms of the level of detail provided regarding its selection and content. We categorised these descriptions according to the amount of detail they provided as: basic (72%), moderate (16%) and comprehensive (12%). Few protocols justified the content of their usual care comparator, with most simply commenting that it was based on clinical guidelines or current practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Different terms are used to describe usual care and most primary care researchers provide limited details on the section and content of their usual care comparators when publishing study protocols. This has implications for transparency and replicability, and suggests researchers continue to give limited attention to the content of usual care when designing their trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of General Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0525\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0525","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多评估复杂卫生干预措施的初级保健试验使用“常规护理”比较指标。由于“常规护理”可能因临床地点、国家和时间的不同而有所不同,这会影响试验设计并引起伦理考虑,因此应在试验开始前注意其内容。目的:了解研究人员在设计复杂卫生干预措施的初级保健试验时如何选择和描述常规护理比较者。设计和设置:对初级保健试验或可行性研究方案进行系统回顾。方法:检索2020年7月1日至2022年6月20日的电子数据库。结果:共纳入83个方案。通常照护和照护等一系列术语被用来描述通常照护。就其选择和内容所提供的详细程度而言,不同方案对日常护理的描述差异很大。我们根据他们提供的细节量将这些描述分类为:基本(72%),中等(16%)和全面(12%)。很少有协议证明其常规护理比较物的内容是合理的,大多数协议只是简单地评论说,它是基于临床指南或当前实践。结论:不同的术语用于描述常规护理,大多数初级保健研究人员在发表研究方案时,对其常规护理比较物的部分和内容提供有限的细节。这对透明度和可复制性有影响,并建议研究人员在设计试验时继续对常规护理的内容给予有限的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Selection and reporting of usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions: a systematic review.

Background: Many primary care trials evaluating complex health interventions use a 'usual care' comparator. As 'usual care' can vary across clinical sites, countries, and over time, impacting trial design and raising ethical considerations attention should be given to its content prior to a trial starting.

Aim: To understand how researchers select and describe usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions.

Design and setting: A systematic review of primary care trial or feasibility study protocols.

Method: Electronic databases were searched from 1 July 2020 to 20 June 2022.

Results: A total of 83 protocols were included. A range of terms such as usual care and care as usual were used to describe usual care. The description of usual care varied significantly between protocols in terms of the level of detail provided regarding its selection and content. We categorised these descriptions according to the amount of detail they provided as: basic (72%), moderate (16%) and comprehensive (12%). Few protocols justified the content of their usual care comparator, with most simply commenting that it was based on clinical guidelines or current practice.

Conclusion: Different terms are used to describe usual care and most primary care researchers provide limited details on the section and content of their usual care comparators when publishing study protocols. This has implications for transparency and replicability, and suggests researchers continue to give limited attention to the content of usual care when designing their trials.

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
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信