Educational Needs and Interests of Patients With Liver Disease: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Liver disease forms a global health burden and is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality. Good patient education is a key tool in disease management, providing significant benefit in knowledge and behavioral modifications. This study aims to evaluate the quality and results of studies assessing the perceived and unperceived educational needs of liver disease patients. Methods: Multiple databases were searched for studies assessing educational needs of individuals with any type of liver disease. The initial search identified 584 publications. Inclusion criteria: 1. Study population of patients with any form of liver disease. 2. Studies including an assessment of patient knowledge about their or any other form of liver disease, or of patient interest in educational programs. Final analysis included 40 studies. Data extracted included methodology and results of perceived and unperceived educational needs of patients. The quality of each study was appraised. To simplify the analysis, the knowledge domains that were assessed in the studies were grouped into 6 categories: diagnosis, symptoms, complications, modes of transmission/prevention, treatment/self-care, and other (eg etiology, prevalence). All studies had their own limitations, and each study assessed patients in different settings, so a cut-off score was used to determine high-quality studies to be reviewed in detail. The 7 studies with the highest scores are discussed in detail, all of which assessed 2 or more domains of knowledge. Results: Of the 40 studies that were evaluated in this review, 85% (n= 34) included patients with hepatitis B or C virus. Among these studies, there was a wide variation in modes of assessment and target populations. Although the heterogeneity of studies make it difficult to get an objective sense of where knowledge gaps lie, we did identify some common themes. Knowledge gaps were present in all domains, including very relevant ones such as disease diagnosis. Conclusion: Overall, it was found that there are large knowledge gaps that should be addressed in all liver disease patients, as it has been shown that patient awareness does play a large role in improving behavioural outcomes. Another common theme was the variation in knowledge based on the level of patient health literacy. Further studies should aim to create validated questionnaires to assess patients' educational needs. This will allow the future development of effective and more targeted educational resources.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».