文獻評析報告相關準備結果
評析材料:Rose, A., Rosewilliam, S., & Soundy, A. (2016). Shared decision making within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.030一、摘要
1.目的:To map out and
synthesis literature that considers the extent of shared decision-making (SDM)
within goal setting in rehabilitation settings and explore participants' view
of this approach.
2.方法: Four databases
were systematically searched between January 2005 – September 2015. All articles
addressing SDM within goal-setting involving adult rehabilitation patients were
included.
3.結果: The search output
identified 3129 studies and 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Themes that
emerged related to methods of SDM within goal-setting, participants’ views on
SDM, perceived benefits of SDM, barriers and facilitators to using SDM and
suggestions to improve involvement of patients resulting in a better process of
goal-setting.
4.結論: The literature
showed various levels of patient involvement existing within goal-setting however
few teams adopted an entirely patient-centred approach. However, since the
review has identified clear value to consider SDM within goal-setting for
rehabilitation, further research is required and practice should consider
educating both clinicians and patients about this approach.
5.意涵: To enhance the
use of SDM within goal-setting in rehabilitation it is likely clinicians and
patients will require further education on this approach. For clinicians this
could commence during their training at undergraduate level.
二、相關想法
1.在沒有實際閱讀時，我會期待可以從此文獻中得到有別於其他醫療領域的施行狀況或者觀點。但是讀完之後，我沒有surprised的感覺，因為觀點相似於其他醫療領域。
2.關於前言，作者沒有在此段落明確點出研究目的，僅在摘要中有明確說明。此與我認知的書寫慣例稍有不同，因此我覺得這點可以改善。
3.關於檢索策略，我覺得作者的檢索模式非常陽春，因此我猜想應該會miss很多有價值的文獻。
4.關於文獻收納標準，我認識到SPIDER
framework。也許未來有機會可以用到。
5.關於綜合分析，我覺得用逐字編碼的方式來形成分析性主題，讓人覺得作者真的很用心，但我覺得分析性主題可以再更縮減一點，因為6個主題的內容重複性太高。
6.關於討論的段落，我覺得作者只是把結果再重新書寫一次，並沒有提供什麼額外的訊息或解釋。
7.關於臨床意涵，我覺得兩個主要議題卻寫的跟討論一樣長，真的會讓人沒有耐心看不下去。
8.整體而言，這篇文獻對我們的參考價值有限，但是從它的參考文獻中我們可以找到幾篇可能更有參考價值的文獻。
S.
Rosewilliam, C.A. Roskell, A.D. Pandyan, A systematic review and synthesis of
the quantitative and qualitative evidence behind patient-centred goal setting
in stroke rehabilitation, Clin. Rehabil. 25 (2011) 501–514.
E. Leach, P.
Cornwell, J. Fleming, T. Haines, Patient centered goal-setting in a subacute
rehabilitation setting, Disabil. Rehabil. 32 (2010) 159–172.
三、相關問題
1.如果文獻回顧的材料都是質性研究類型，則有無提供文獻品質結果，是否會影響我們對於此文獻回顧結果的信賴度?
2.如果想要了解共同決策在復健領域的執行現況，我們是否直接進行質性研究更實在?
沒有留言:
張貼留言