长期疾病患者的自我管理干预:对多病患者报告纳入、评估和结果的方法进行结构化回顾。

Journal of comorbidity Pub Date : 2014-08-28 eCollection Date: 2014-01-01 DOI:10.15256/joc.2014.4.33
Cassandra Kenning, Peter A Coventry, Peter Bower
{"title":"长期疾病患者的自我管理干预:对多病患者报告纳入、评估和结果的方法进行结构化回顾。","authors":"Cassandra Kenning,&nbsp;Peter A Coventry,&nbsp;Peter Bower","doi":"10.15256/joc.2014.4.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multimorbidity has many potential implications for healthcare delivery, but a particularly important impact concerns the validity of trial evidence underpinning clinical guidelines for individual conditions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review how authors of published trials of self-management interventions reported inclusion criteria, sample descriptions, and consideration of the impact of multimorbidity on trial outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We restricted our analysis to a small number of exemplar long-term conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We focussed our search on published Cochrane reviews. Data were extracted from the trials on <i>inclusion/exclusion</i>, <i>sample description</i>, and <i>impact on outcomes</i>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven reviews consisting of 164 unique trials were identified. Sixty percent of trials reported excluding patients with forms of multimorbidity. Reasons for exclusion were poorly described or defined. Reporting of multimorbidity within the trials was poor, with only 35% of trials reporting on multimorbidity in their patient samples. Secondary analyses, exploring the impact of multimorbidity, were very rare.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The importance of multimorbidity in trials is only going to become more important over time, but trials often exclude patients with multimorbidity, and reporting of multimorbidity in trials including such patients is generally poor. This limits judgements about the external validity of the results for clinical populations. A consistent approach to the conduct and reporting of secondary analyses of the effects of multimorbidity on outcomes, using current best-practice guidance, could lead to a rapid development of the evidence base.</p>","PeriodicalId":92071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comorbidity","volume":"4 ","pages":"37-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15256/joc.2014.4.33","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity.\",\"authors\":\"Cassandra Kenning,&nbsp;Peter A Coventry,&nbsp;Peter Bower\",\"doi\":\"10.15256/joc.2014.4.33\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multimorbidity has many potential implications for healthcare delivery, but a particularly important impact concerns the validity of trial evidence underpinning clinical guidelines for individual conditions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review how authors of published trials of self-management interventions reported inclusion criteria, sample descriptions, and consideration of the impact of multimorbidity on trial outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We restricted our analysis to a small number of exemplar long-term conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We focussed our search on published Cochrane reviews. Data were extracted from the trials on <i>inclusion/exclusion</i>, <i>sample description</i>, and <i>impact on outcomes</i>.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven reviews consisting of 164 unique trials were identified. Sixty percent of trials reported excluding patients with forms of multimorbidity. Reasons for exclusion were poorly described or defined. Reporting of multimorbidity within the trials was poor, with only 35% of trials reporting on multimorbidity in their patient samples. Secondary analyses, exploring the impact of multimorbidity, were very rare.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The importance of multimorbidity in trials is only going to become more important over time, but trials often exclude patients with multimorbidity, and reporting of multimorbidity in trials including such patients is generally poor. This limits judgements about the external validity of the results for clinical populations. A consistent approach to the conduct and reporting of secondary analyses of the effects of multimorbidity on outcomes, using current best-practice guidance, could lead to a rapid development of the evidence base.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comorbidity\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"37-45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15256/joc.2014.4.33\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comorbidity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2014.4.33\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2014/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comorbidity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15256/joc.2014.4.33","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

背景:多病对医疗保健服务有许多潜在的影响,但一个特别重要的影响涉及支持个体疾病临床指南的试验证据的有效性。目的:回顾已发表的自我管理干预试验的作者如何报告纳入标准、样本描述以及考虑多病对试验结果的影响。方法:我们将分析限制在少数典型的长期疾病:2型糖尿病、冠心病和慢性阻塞性肺疾病。我们将搜索重点放在已发表的Cochrane综述上。从纳入/排除、样本描述和对结果的影响的试验中提取数据。结果:11篇综述包含164个独特的试验。60%的试验报告排除了多种疾病形式的患者。排除的原因没有得到很好的描述或定义。在试验中报告多重疾病的情况很少,只有35%的试验报告了患者样本中的多重疾病。次要分析,探讨多病的影响,是非常罕见的。结论:随着时间的推移,多病在试验中的重要性只会变得越来越重要,但试验通常会排除多病患者,并且在包括这些患者的试验中,多病的报告通常很差。这限制了对临床人群结果的外部有效性的判断。采用一致的方法进行和报告多重发病对结果的影响的二次分析,并采用目前的最佳实践指南,可能会导致证据基础的快速发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity.

Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity.

Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity.

Self-management interventions in patients with long-term conditions: a structured review of approaches to reporting inclusion, assessment, and outcomes in multimorbidity.

Background: Multimorbidity has many potential implications for healthcare delivery, but a particularly important impact concerns the validity of trial evidence underpinning clinical guidelines for individual conditions.

Objective: To review how authors of published trials of self-management interventions reported inclusion criteria, sample descriptions, and consideration of the impact of multimorbidity on trial outcomes.

Methods: We restricted our analysis to a small number of exemplar long-term conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We focussed our search on published Cochrane reviews. Data were extracted from the trials on inclusion/exclusion, sample description, and impact on outcomes.

Results: Eleven reviews consisting of 164 unique trials were identified. Sixty percent of trials reported excluding patients with forms of multimorbidity. Reasons for exclusion were poorly described or defined. Reporting of multimorbidity within the trials was poor, with only 35% of trials reporting on multimorbidity in their patient samples. Secondary analyses, exploring the impact of multimorbidity, were very rare.

Conclusions: The importance of multimorbidity in trials is only going to become more important over time, but trials often exclude patients with multimorbidity, and reporting of multimorbidity in trials including such patients is generally poor. This limits judgements about the external validity of the results for clinical populations. A consistent approach to the conduct and reporting of secondary analyses of the effects of multimorbidity on outcomes, using current best-practice guidance, could lead to a rapid development of the evidence base.

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
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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