临床环境中的器官和组织捐赠:针对卫生专业人员的干预措施影响的系统回顾。

Frédéric Douville, Gaston Godin, Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im
{"title":"临床环境中的器官和组织捐赠:针对卫生专业人员的干预措施影响的系统回顾。","authors":"Frédéric Douville,&nbsp;Gaston Godin,&nbsp;Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im","doi":"10.1186/2047-1440-3-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In countries where presumed consent for organ donation does not apply, health professionals (HP) are key players for identifying donors and obtaining their consent. This systematic review was designed to verify the efficacy of interventions aimed at HPs to promote organ and tissue donation in clinical settings. CINAHL (1982 to 2012), COCHRANE LIBRARY, EMBASE (1974 to 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PsycINFO (1960 to 2012), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched for papers published in French or English until September 2012. Studies were considered if they met the following criteria: aimed at improving HPs' practices regarding the donation process or at increasing donation rates; HPs working in clinical settings; and interventions with a control group or pre-post assessments. Intervention behavioral change techniques were analyzed using a validated taxonomy. A risk ratio was computed for each study having a control group. A total of 15 studies were identified, of which only 5 had a control group. Interventions were either educational, organizational or a combination of both, and had a weak theoretical basis. The most common behavior change technique was providing instruction. Two sets of interventions showed a significant risk ratio. However, most studies did not report the information needed to compute their efficacy. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving the donation process or at increasing donation rates should be based on sound theoretical frameworks. They would benefit from more rigorous evaluation methods to ensure good knowledge translation and appropriate organizational decisions to improve professional practices. </p>","PeriodicalId":89864,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation research","volume":"3 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/2047-1440-3-8","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Organ and tissue donation in clinical settings: a systematic review of the impact of interventions aimed at health professionals.\",\"authors\":\"Frédéric Douville,&nbsp;Gaston Godin,&nbsp;Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/2047-1440-3-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In countries where presumed consent for organ donation does not apply, health professionals (HP) are key players for identifying donors and obtaining their consent. This systematic review was designed to verify the efficacy of interventions aimed at HPs to promote organ and tissue donation in clinical settings. CINAHL (1982 to 2012), COCHRANE LIBRARY, EMBASE (1974 to 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PsycINFO (1960 to 2012), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched for papers published in French or English until September 2012. Studies were considered if they met the following criteria: aimed at improving HPs' practices regarding the donation process or at increasing donation rates; HPs working in clinical settings; and interventions with a control group or pre-post assessments. Intervention behavioral change techniques were analyzed using a validated taxonomy. A risk ratio was computed for each study having a control group. A total of 15 studies were identified, of which only 5 had a control group. Interventions were either educational, organizational or a combination of both, and had a weak theoretical basis. The most common behavior change technique was providing instruction. Two sets of interventions showed a significant risk ratio. However, most studies did not report the information needed to compute their efficacy. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving the donation process or at increasing donation rates should be based on sound theoretical frameworks. They would benefit from more rigorous evaluation methods to ensure good knowledge translation and appropriate organizational decisions to improve professional practices. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transplantation research\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/2047-1440-3-8\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transplantation research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-1440-3-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-1440-3-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

在不适用器官捐献假定同意的国家,卫生专业人员是确定捐献者并取得其同意的关键角色。本系统综述旨在验证针对hp的干预措施在临床环境中促进器官和组织捐赠的有效性。检索2012年9月前发表的法文或英文论文,检索CINAHL(1982 - 2012)、COCHRANE LIBRARY、EMBASE(1974 - 2012)、MEDLINE(1966 - 2012)、PsycINFO(1960 - 2012)和ProQuest Dissertations and Theses。符合以下标准的研究将被考虑:旨在改善hp关于捐赠过程的做法或提高捐赠率;在临床环境中工作的卫生保健工作者;还有控制组的干预或前后评估。使用经过验证的分类法分析干预行为改变技术。每个研究都有一个对照组,计算风险比。总共确定了15项研究,其中只有5项有对照组。干预措施要么是教育的,要么是组织的,要么是两者的结合,而且理论基础薄弱。最常见的行为改变技巧是提供指导。两组干预显示显著的风险比。然而,大多数研究没有报告计算其功效所需的信息。因此,旨在改善捐赠过程或提高捐赠率的干预措施应以健全的理论框架为基础。他们将受益于更严格的评估方法,以确保良好的知识转化和适当的组织决策,以改进专业实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Organ and tissue donation in clinical settings: a systematic review of the impact of interventions aimed at health professionals.

Organ and tissue donation in clinical settings: a systematic review of the impact of interventions aimed at health professionals.

In countries where presumed consent for organ donation does not apply, health professionals (HP) are key players for identifying donors and obtaining their consent. This systematic review was designed to verify the efficacy of interventions aimed at HPs to promote organ and tissue donation in clinical settings. CINAHL (1982 to 2012), COCHRANE LIBRARY, EMBASE (1974 to 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PsycINFO (1960 to 2012), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were searched for papers published in French or English until September 2012. Studies were considered if they met the following criteria: aimed at improving HPs' practices regarding the donation process or at increasing donation rates; HPs working in clinical settings; and interventions with a control group or pre-post assessments. Intervention behavioral change techniques were analyzed using a validated taxonomy. A risk ratio was computed for each study having a control group. A total of 15 studies were identified, of which only 5 had a control group. Interventions were either educational, organizational or a combination of both, and had a weak theoretical basis. The most common behavior change technique was providing instruction. Two sets of interventions showed a significant risk ratio. However, most studies did not report the information needed to compute their efficacy. Therefore, interventions aimed at improving the donation process or at increasing donation rates should be based on sound theoretical frameworks. They would benefit from more rigorous evaluation methods to ensure good knowledge translation and appropriate organizational decisions to improve professional practices.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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