Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25531451/ below:

Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review

Review

Affiliations

• ¹ Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia2School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
• ² Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.

• PMID: 25531451
• DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016

Item in Clipboard

Review

Tammy C Hoffmann et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Feb.

• ¹ Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia2School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
• ² Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.

• PMID: 25531451
• DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016

Item in Clipboard

Importance: Unrealistic patient expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention uptake and health care costs.

Objective: To systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed patients' expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test.

Evidence review: A comprehensive search strategy was used in 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO) up to June 2013, with no language or study type restriction. We also ran cited reference searches of included studies and contacted experts and study authors. Two researchers independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted participants' estimates of benefit and harms and authors' contemporaneous estimates.

Findings: Of the 15,343 records screened, 36 articles (from 35 studies) involving a total of 27,323 patients were eligible. Fourteen studies focused on a screen, 15 on treatment, 3 a test, and 3 on treatment and screening. More studies assessed only benefit expectations (22 [63%]) than benefit and harm expectations (10 [29%]) or only harm (3 [8%]). Fifty-four outcomes (across 32 studies) assessed benefit expectations: of the 34 outcomes with overestimation data available, the majority of participants overestimated benefit for 22 (65%) of them. For 17 benefit expectation outcomes, we could not calculate the proportion of participants who overestimated or underestimated, although for 15 (88%) of these, study authors concluded that participants overestimated benefits. Expectations of harm were assessed by 27 outcomes (across 13 studies): underestimation data were available for 15 outcomes and the majority of participants underestimated harm for 10 (67%) of these. A correct estimation by at least 50% of participants only occurred for 2 outcomes about benefit expectations and 2 outcomes about harm expectations.

Conclusions and relevance: The majority of participants overestimated intervention benefit and underestimated harm. Clinicians should discuss accurate and balanced information about intervention benefits and harms with patients, providing the opportunity to develop realistic expectations and make informed decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Clinicians' Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests: A Systematic Review.

  Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Hoffmann TC, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177(3):407-419. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254. JAMA Intern Med. 2017. PMID: 28097303 Review.

• Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.

  Osborne SR, Alston LV, Bolton KA, Whelan J, Reeve E, Wong Shee A, Browne J, Walker T, Versace VL, Allender S, Nichols M, Backholer K, Goodwin N, Lewis S, Dalton H, Prael G, Curtin M, Brooks R, Verdon S, Crockett J, Hodgins G, Walsh S, Lyle DM, Thompson SC, Browne LJ, Knight S, Pit SW, Jones M, Gillam MH, Leach MJ, Gonzalez-Chica DA, Muyambi K, Eshetie T, Tran K, May E, Lieschke G, Parker V, Smith A, Hayes C, Dunlop AJ, Rajappa H, White R, Oakley P, Holliday S. Osborne SR, et al. Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144

• Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Stacey D, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 5;(10):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. PMID: 21975733 Updated. Review.
• Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. O'Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D. O'Connor AM, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 8;(3):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. PMID: 19588325 Updated. Review.
• Second-generation antidepressants for preventing seasonal affective disorder in adults. Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer B, Gaynes BN, Forneris CA, Morgan LC, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Greenblatt A, Wipplinger J, Lux LJ, Sonis JH, Hofmann J, Van Noord MG, Winkler D. Gartlehner G, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 8;(11):CD011268. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011268.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. PMID: 26558418 Updated. Review.

• Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women.

  Taksler GB, Peterse EFP, Willems I, Ten Haaf K, Jansen EEL, de Kok IMCM, van Ravesteyn NT, de Koning HJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Taksler GB, et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021 Jun 1;7(6):885-894. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0952. JAMA Oncol. 2021. PMID: 33914025 Free PMC article.

• Information about the natural history of acute infections commonly seen in primary care: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

  Boaitey KP, Bakhit M, Krzyzaniak N, Hoffmann TC. Boaitey KP, et al. BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Dec 1;22(1):897. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07887-1. BMC Infect Dis. 2022. PMID: 36456959 Free PMC article.

• Réfutation des mythes entourant le dépistage: Comment dépister plus judicieusement.

  Thériault G, Reynolds DL, Grad R, Dickinson JA, Singh H, Szafran O, Antao V, Bell NR. Thériault G, et al. Can Fam Physician. 2023 Nov;69(11):e216-e220. doi: 10.46747/cfp.6911e216. Can Fam Physician. 2023. PMID: 37963800 Free PMC article. French. No abstract available.

• Decisional regret following corrective adult spinal deformity surgery: a single institution study of incidence and risk factors.

  Du JY, Lovecchio FC, Kazarian G, Clohisy J, Pajak A, Kaidi A, Knopp R, Akosman I, Johnson M, Nakarai H, Dash A, Samuel JT, Cunningham ME, Kim HJ. Du JY, et al. Spine Deform. 2024 May;12(3):775-783. doi: 10.1007/s43390-023-00790-y. Epub 2024 Jan 30. Spine Deform. 2024. PMID: 38289505

• Women's experiences of age-related discontinuation from mammography screening: A qualitative interview study.

  Gram EG, Knudsen SW, Brodersen JB, Jønsson ABR. Gram EG, et al. Health Expect. 2023 Jun;26(3):1096-1106. doi: 10.1111/hex.13723. Epub 2023 Feb 17. Health Expect. 2023. PMID: 36807965 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3