20161013討論議題

本次要討論的主題有二:1.確定文獻評析作業之材料 2.確認Bouniols文獻之正向觀點描述。

一、確定文獻評析作業之材料
此文獻評析的文獻類型選擇為成效評量。因成效評量又可區分為短期成效與長期成效，而此次挑選的範疇較多都是偏屬長期成效之評量工具。

待選文獻共有5篇，其優先順序及相關描述如下:
1.Wong, G.K., et al., Clinically important difference of Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Clin Neurosci, 2016.
  a.工具名稱:Chinese version of Stroke-specific Quality of Life
  b.受試者:aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage
  c.心理計量特性:Clinically Important Difference
  d.年份:2016

2.Luo, Y., J. Yang, and Y. Zhang, Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for stroke patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2015. 13: p. 53.
  a.工具名稱:stroke patient-reported outcome measure (Stroke-PROM)
  b.受試者:Stroke (not in acute stage)
  c.心理計量特性:Reliability, validity, responsiveness and feasibility
  d.年份:2015

3.Vincent-Onabajo, G.O., M.O. Owolabi, and T.K. Hamzat, Sensitivity and responsiveness of the health-related quality of life in stroke patients-40 (HRQOLISP-40) scale. Disabil Rehabil, 2014. 36(12): p. 1014-9.
  a.工具名稱:the health-related quality of life in stroke patients-40 (HRQOLISP-40) scale
  b.受試者:stroke patients from onset to 12 months
  c.心理計量特性:Sensitivity and responsiveness
  d.年份:2014

4.Murgatroyd, P. and L. Karimi, Validity and reliability of a novel measure of activity performance and participation. Disabil Rehabil, 2016. 38(4): p. 374-83.
  a.工具名稱:The Activity Performance Measure
  b.受試者:48 community-dwelling participants
  c.心理計量特性:clinical sensibility, comprehensiveness, practicality, inter-rater reliability, responsiveness, sensitivity and concurrent validity
  d.年份:2016

5.Lee, Y.C., et al., Reliability and responsiveness of the activities of daily living computerized adaptive testing system in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2014. 95(11): p. 2055-63.
  a.工具名稱:the Activities of Daily Living Computerized Adaptive Testing System
  b.受試者:Patients With Stroke
  c.心理計量特性:Reliability and Responsiveness
  d.年份:2014


二、Bouniols文獻之正向觀點描述
1.我們可以針對Bouniols學者的研究成果，思考更進一步的研究方向。如:Bouniols學者比較多種shared decision making model之後，認為Makoul and Clayman's integrative model of shared decision making是一個較好的模式。因此我們未來在模式選用時，也可以採用Makoul and Clayman's integrative model of shared decision making。

(補充說明:Makoul等學者認為共同決策的必要元素有:a.定義/解釋問題 b.呈現選向 c.討論優點/缺點 d.患者的價值/偏好 e.討論患者的能力/自我效能 f.醫師的知識/建議 g.確認/釐清是否了解 h.做決定/延遲做決定 i.安排後續追蹤。)

2.Bouniols學者特別強調評估工具的使用會有國情差異。因此在發展或翻譯他國的共同決策工具時需考量跨文化調適的議題。雖然我們目前尚未決定是否要自己發展相關工具或者翻譯他國的共同決策工具，但在未來我們實際做出決定時，可考量此議題。

3.Bouniols學者已針對不同的評估工具進行彙整，這可以有利於我們未來針對不同工具進行評析時使用。

4.Bouniols學者已經將我們的研究題材完成，因此，老師與我不用再針對檢索關鍵字的選用而起爭執。