首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics >Improving compliance in depression: a systematic review of narrative reviews.
【24h】

Improving compliance in depression: a systematic review of narrative reviews.

机译:改善抑郁症患者的依从性:对叙事性评论的系统评价。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background and objective: Narrative reviews represent a popular source of information for clinicians, especially where the evidence on a given subject is sparse and analogies from other fields of medicine may help in filling the information gap. Unfortunately, narrative reviews often follow less stringent criteria for information selection and appraisal than systematic reviews, potentially leading to incomplete or biased recommendations. The objective of the present study was to examine the quality of the recommendations provided by narrative reviews on how to improve patient adherence to pharmacological treatment of unipolar depressive disorders. Method: We sought to locate all narrative review papers addressing adherence to treatment in unipolar depressive disorders. In order to do so, we searched Medline and PsychInfo from 1980 to December 2003, using the following keywords: review, depressive disorders, treatment, dropout, patient compliance and adherence. We inspected the title and the abstract, whenever available to identify the relevant reviews and obtained a full copy of the publications in this subset, and read the articles to identify further relevant reviews. These were in turn copied and reviewed, until no further references were found. Results and discussion: We identified 23 reviews, providing a total of 87 recommendations. The most common recommendation was for patient education (19 times), patient-physician empathy/alliance (14 times), and education of family (nine times). Reviewers' recommendations were based on the literature on depression 54 times, and on other medical conditions 17 times. A critical appraisal of the evidence base of the recommendations showed that randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses were quoted to support the recommendations only 23% of the times, while important interventions of proven efficacy in the field of depression or in other chronic conditions (e.g. medication clinics, training of nurses, psychological treatment, and telephone follow-up) were not mentioned. Conclusions: Narrative reviews on adherence to pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders suffer not only from the limited availability of good quality evidence, but also from an incomplete critical appraisal of available evidence on interventions both for depression and for other chronic disorders.
机译:背景与目的:叙事性评论是临床医生常用的信息来源,尤其是在有关给定主题的证据稀少且来自其他医学领域的类比可能有助于填补信息空白的情况下。不幸的是,叙事评论通常不像系统评论那样遵循严格的信息选择和评估标准,从而可能导致建议不完整或偏颇。本研究的目的是检查叙述性评论提供的有关如何提高患者对单相抑郁症药物治疗的依从性的建议的质量。方法:我们试图找到所有叙述性治疗单证抑郁症治疗依从性的叙述性论文。为此,我们使用以下关键字搜索1980年至2003年12月之间的Medline和PsychInfo:审查,抑郁症,治疗,辍学,患者依从性和依从性。我们会在可能的情况下检查标题和摘要,以标识相关评论,并获得此子集中出版物的完整副本,并阅读文章以标识其他相关评论。依次复制并审查这些内容,直到没有其他参考文献为止。结果与讨论:我们确定了23条评论,共提供了87条建议。最常见的建议是对患者进行教育(19次),对患者-医师的同情/联盟(14次)和对家庭的教育(9次)。审阅者的建议是基于有关抑郁症的文献54次,基于其他医学疾病的文献17次。对建议证据基础的严格评估表明,只有23%的时间引用了随机对照试验或荟萃分析来支持建议,而在抑郁症或其他慢性疾病领域(例如,没有提到药物诊所,护士培训,心理治疗和电话随访)。结论:对抑郁症药物治疗依从性的叙述性评论不仅受到高质量证据的有限可用性的困扰,而且由于对抑郁症和其他慢性疾病干预措施的可用证据的批评性评估不够完善。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号