心脏病学指南中以患者和家庭为中心的护理建议：一项人工智能驱动的系统评价

IF 2.5 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

CJC Open Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.05.017

Sarah A. Beydoun BSc, MSc (candidate) , Catherine Gagné BSc , Noah S. Neubarth BSc , Jean-Pierre Abdallah BSc, MSc , Jillian Kifell BSc, MSc , Michael Goldfarb MD, MSc

{"title":"心脏病学指南中以患者和家庭为中心的护理建议：一项人工智能驱动的系统评价","authors":"Sarah A. Beydoun BSc, MSc (candidate) , Catherine Gagné BSc , Noah S. Neubarth BSc , Jean-Pierre Abdallah BSc, MSc , Jillian Kifell BSc, MSc , Michael Goldfarb MD, MSc","doi":"10.1016/j.cjco.2025.05.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) is recognized as a critical component of cardiovascular care, but its integration into cardiology society guidelines has not been described. The objective of this study is to review PFCC language use and recommendations within major cardiology society guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review of guidelines and statements from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the period 2013-2023. PFCC-related key terms were identified using an artificial intelligence–based natural language processing algorithm, and recommendations were categorized into 8 dimensions of PFCC. The inclusion of PFCC recommendations across societies and trends over time were examined.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 260 guidelines and statements were analyzed. The most frequent PFCC dimensions overall were Health Transitions (23.5 per 100 pages), Shared Decision-Making (11.1 per 100 pages), and Care Access (9.9 per 100 pages). The least commonly identified dimensions across all journals were Care Coordination (6.5 per 100 pages), Emotional Support (4.0 per 100 pages), and Familial Support (1.0 per 100 pages). The CCS, ACC, and AHA had more recommendations using PFCC key terms than the ESC per 100 pages (17.3, 12.0, 10.3 vs 4.6, respectively, <em>P</em> < 0.01). PFCC language usage increased markedly over the 10-year period for the ACC, AHA, and ESC, but it decreased for the CCS (all <em>P</em> < 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>PFCC language and recommendations are being included increasingly in cardiology society guidelines. Differences exist in PFCC language use across these societies. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact of these guideline recommendations on clinical practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36924,"journal":{"name":"CJC Open","volume":"7 9","pages":"Pages 1218-1225"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient- and Family-Centered Care Recommendations in Cardiology Guidelines: An AI-Driven Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Sarah A. Beydoun BSc, MSc (candidate) , Catherine Gagné BSc , Noah S. Neubarth BSc , Jean-Pierre Abdallah BSc, MSc , Jillian Kifell BSc, MSc , Michael Goldfarb MD, MSc\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cjco.2025.05.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) is recognized as a critical component of cardiovascular care, but its integration into cardiology society guidelines has not been described. The objective of this study is to review PFCC language use and recommendations within major cardiology society guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review of guidelines and statements from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the period 2013-2023. PFCC-related key terms were identified using an artificial intelligence–based natural language processing algorithm, and recommendations were categorized into 8 dimensions of PFCC. The inclusion of PFCC recommendations across societies and trends over time were examined.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 260 guidelines and statements were analyzed. The most frequent PFCC dimensions overall were Health Transitions (23.5 per 100 pages), Shared Decision-Making (11.1 per 100 pages), and Care Access (9.9 per 100 pages). The least commonly identified dimensions across all journals were Care Coordination (6.5 per 100 pages), Emotional Support (4.0 per 100 pages), and Familial Support (1.0 per 100 pages). The CCS, ACC, and AHA had more recommendations using PFCC key terms than the ESC per 100 pages (17.3, 12.0, 10.3 vs 4.6, respectively, <em>P</em> < 0.01). PFCC language usage increased markedly over the 10-year period for the ACC, AHA, and ESC, but it decreased for the CCS (all <em>P</em> < 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>PFCC language and recommendations are being included increasingly in cardiology society guidelines. Differences exist in PFCC language use across these societies. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact of these guideline recommendations on clinical practice.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJC Open\",\"volume\":\"7 9\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1218-1225\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJC Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X25004019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJC Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X25004019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

以患者和家庭为中心的护理（PFCC）被认为是心血管护理的关键组成部分，但其纳入心脏病学会指南尚未描述。本研究的目的是回顾主要心脏病学会指南中PFCC语言的使用和建议。方法：我们对2013-2023年期间美国心脏病学会（ACC）、美国心脏协会（AHA）、加拿大心血管学会（CCS）和欧洲心脏病学会（ESC）的指南和声明进行了系统回顾。使用基于人工智能的自然语言处理算法识别PFCC相关关键术语，并将建议分为PFCC的8个维度。研究了全社会PFCC建议的纳入情况和长期趋势。结果共分析了260份指南和声明。总体而言，最常见的PFCC维度是健康转换（每100页23.5个）、共享决策（每100页11.1个）和护理获取（每100页9.9个）。所有期刊中最不常见的维度是护理协调（每100页6.5个），情感支持（每100页4.0个）和家庭支持（每100页1.0个）。CCS、ACC和AHA每100页使用PFCC关键词的推荐比ESC多（分别为17.3、12.0、10.3和4.6,P < 0.01）。在10年期间，ACC、AHA和ESC的PFCC语言使用显著增加，但CCS的PFCC语言使用减少（均P <； 0.05）。结论spfcc语言和建议越来越多地被纳入心脏病学会指南。在这些社会中，PFCC语言的使用存在差异。需要进一步的研究来评估这些指南建议对临床实践的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Patient- and Family-Centered Care Recommendations in Cardiology Guidelines: An AI-Driven Systematic Review

Background

Patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) is recognized as a critical component of cardiovascular care, but its integration into cardiology society guidelines has not been described. The objective of this study is to review PFCC language use and recommendations within major cardiology society guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of guidelines and statements from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the period 2013-2023. PFCC-related key terms were identified using an artificial intelligence–based natural language processing algorithm, and recommendations were categorized into 8 dimensions of PFCC. The inclusion of PFCC recommendations across societies and trends over time were examined.

Results

A total of 260 guidelines and statements were analyzed. The most frequent PFCC dimensions overall were Health Transitions (23.5 per 100 pages), Shared Decision-Making (11.1 per 100 pages), and Care Access (9.9 per 100 pages). The least commonly identified dimensions across all journals were Care Coordination (6.5 per 100 pages), Emotional Support (4.0 per 100 pages), and Familial Support (1.0 per 100 pages). The CCS, ACC, and AHA had more recommendations using PFCC key terms than the ESC per 100 pages (17.3, 12.0, 10.3 vs 4.6, respectively, P < 0.01). PFCC language usage increased markedly over the 10-year period for the ACC, AHA, and ESC, but it decreased for the CCS (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions

PFCC language and recommendations are being included increasingly in cardiology society guidelines. Differences exist in PFCC language use across these societies. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact of these guideline recommendations on clinical practice.

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