MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1599898090 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003716

Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home

2003· review· en· W1599898090 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEMedicineInclusion (mineral)Randomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Health careRelevance (law)Family medicineNursingPsychological interventionPsychologySurgerySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is becoming commonplace for patients to be discharged earlier from acute hospital settings to their own homes and be required to manage various aspects of their own care. This has increased the need for detailed information to be given to patients and/or significant others to enable them to effectively manage care at home. It has been suggested that providing written health information can assist in this self management. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of providing written health information in addition to verbal information for patients and/or significant others being discharged from acute hospital settings to home. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches from 1990 to June 2002 of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, OVID (including Ageline, EBM Reviews, DARE, Best Evidence, Pre-MEDLINE and PsycARTICLES), Sociological abstracts, Austhealth and bibliographies in articles that met inclusion criteria. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were selected if they were randomised control trials or controlled clinical trials; included patients discharged from acute hospital settings to home; the patient and/or significant others received written health information and verbal information in the intervention group, and verbal information only in the control group; and the intervention (written health information and verbal information) was provided at discharge. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts to determine relevance. Relevant full paper copies were then reviewed against the inclusion criteria. The findings were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by the other reviewer. The two trials that met the inclusion criteria were too disparate to warrant meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The participants in the two trials were parents of children who were discharged from children's hospitals, one in the United States (n=197) the other in Canada (n=123). Provision of verbal and written health information significantly increased knowledge and satisfaction scores. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review recommends the use of both verbal and written health information when communicating about care issues with patients and/or significant others on discharge from hospital to home. The combination of verbal and written health information enables the provision of standardised care information to patients and/or significant others, which appears to improve knowledge and satisfaction. Many of our objectives could not be addressed in this review due to lack of trials which met the review's inclusion criteria. There is therefore scope for future research to investigate the effects of providing verbal and written health information on readmission rates, recovery time, complication rates, costs of health care, consumers' confidence level, stress and anxiety and adherence to recommended treatment and staff training in the delivery of verbal and written information. In addition there are other factors which impact on the effectiveness of information provided that were not considered in this review but are worthy of a separate systematic review, such as the impact of the patient and/or significant others being involved in the development of the written information, and cultural issues around development and provision of information. Due to concerns about literacy levels for some population groups, other systematic reviews should also focus on other modes of delivery of information besides the written format.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,585
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,007
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,436
Écart entre enseignants0,372 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle