scholarly journals Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne M. Finucane ◽  
Hannah O’Donnell ◽  
Jean Lugton ◽  
Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽  
Connie Swenson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

scholarly journals Digital Health Interventions in Palliative Care: A Systematic Meta-Review and Evidence Synthesis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Finucane ◽  
Hannah O'Donnell ◽  
Jean Lugton ◽  
Connie Swenson ◽  
Claudia Pagliari
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Education Decision

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This rigorous meta-review applied a structured search of 10 databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 unique publications. Most reviews were moderate quality. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making support (13%), information provision or management (13%), and communication (9%). Positive impacts were reported on education, decision-making, information-sharing, communication, and costs. Impacts on symptom management were either positive or showed no harmful effects. However often DHIs were described but not evaluated. Responsive pragmatic research designs are now needed to guide further evaluation, implementation and to inform future service innovation.

scholarly journals Using digital interventions to improve the cardiometabolic health of populations: a meta-review of reporting quality

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrienne O’Neil ◽  
Fiona Cocker ◽  
Patricia Rarau ◽  
Shaira Baptista ◽  
Mandy Cassimatis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Health Programs ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Digital Interventions ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Research Findings

Abstract Objectives. We conducted a meta-review to determine the reporting quality of user-centered digital interventions for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic conditions. Materials and Methods. Using predetermined inclusion criteria, systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2015 were identified from 3 databases. To assess whether current evidence is sufficient to inform wider uptake and implementation of digital health programs, we assessed the quality of reporting of research findings using (1) endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, (2) a quality assessment framework (eg, Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool), and (3) 8 parameters of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth (CONSORT-eHEALTH) guidelines (developed in 2010). Results. Of the 33 systematic reviews covering social media, Web-based programs, mobile health programs, and composite modalities, 6 reported using the recommended PRISMA guidelines. Seven did not report using a quality assessment framework. Applying the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines, reporting was of mild to moderate strength. Discussion. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-review to provide a comprehensive analysis of the quality of reporting of research findings for a range of digital health interventions. Our findings suggest that the evidence base and quality of reporting in this rapidly developing field needs significant improvement in order to inform wider implementation and uptake. Conclusion. The inconsistent quality of reporting of digital health interventions for cardiometabolic outcomes may be a critical impediment to real-world implementation.

scholarly journals Virtual models of care for people with palliative care needs living in their own home: A systematic meta-review and narrative synthesis

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110244
Author(s):  
Domenica Disalvo ◽  
Meera Agar ◽  
Gideon Caplan ◽  
Fliss EM Murtagh ◽  
Tim Luckett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Video Conferencing ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Virtual Models ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Palliative Care Needs

Background: Access to palliative care in the community enables people to live in their preferred place of care, which is often home. Community palliative care services struggle to provide timely 24-h services to patients and family. This has resulted in calls for ‘accessible and flexible’ models of care that are ‘responsive’ to peoples’ changing palliative care needs. Digital health technologies provide opportunities to meet these requirements 24-h a day. Aim: To identify digital health technologies that have been evaluated for supporting timely assessment and management of people living at home with palliative care needs and/or their carer(s), and the evidence-base for each. Design: A systematic review of systematic reviews (‘meta-review’). Systematic reviews evaluating evidence for virtual models of palliative or end-of-life care using one or more digital health technologies were included. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool for Systematic Reviews. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were searched for English-language reviews published between 2015 and 2020. Results: The search yielded 2266 articles, of which 12 systematic reviews met criteria. Sixteen reviews were included in total, after four reviews were found via handsearching. Other than scheduled telehealth, video-conferencing, or after-hours telephone support, little evidence was found for digital health technologies used to deliver virtual models of palliative care. Conclusions: There are opportunities to test new models of virtual care, beyond telehealth and/or video conferencing, such as 24-h command centres, and rapid response teams. Systematic review registration number: Prospero CRD42020200266

scholarly journals Digital Education in Health Professions: The Need for Overarching Evidence Synthesis (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josip Car ◽  
Jan Carlstedt-Duke ◽  
Lorainne Tudor Car ◽  
Pawel Posadzki ◽  
Penny Whiting ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Education ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Digital Education ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Meta Analyses

UNSTRUCTURED Synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials of digital health education poses some challenges. These include a lack of clear categorization of digital health education in the literature; constantly evolving concepts, pedagogies, or theories; and a multitude of methods, features, technologies, or delivery settings. The Digital Health Education Collaboration was established to evaluate the evidence on digital education in health professions; inform policymakers, educators, and students; and ultimately, change the way in which these professionals learn and are taught. The aim of this paper is to present the overarching methodology that we use to synthesize evidence across our digital health education reviews and to discuss challenges related to the process. For our research, we followed Cochrane recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews; all reviews are reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidance. This included assembling experts in various digital health education fields; identifying gaps in the evidence base; formulating focused research questions, aims, and outcome measures; choosing appropriate search terms and databases; defining inclusion and exclusion criteria; running the searches jointly with librarians and information specialists; managing abstracts; retrieving full-text versions of papers; extracting and storing large datasets, critically appraising the quality of studies; analyzing data; discussing findings; drawing meaningful conclusions; and drafting research papers. The approach used for synthesizing evidence from digital health education trials is commonly regarded as the most rigorous benchmark for conducting systematic reviews. Although we acknowledge the presence of certain biases ingrained in the process, we have clearly highlighted and minimized those biases by strictly adhering to scientific rigor, methodological integrity, and standard operating procedures. This paper will be a valuable asset for researchers and methodologists undertaking systematic reviews in digital health education.

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051417
Author(s):  
Katie Seaborn ◽  
Mark Chignell ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luísa Prada ◽  
Ana Prada ◽  
Miguel Antunes ◽  
Ricardo Fernandes ◽  
João Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

scholarly journals Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 196-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Dalton ◽  
Sian Thomas ◽  
Melissa Harden ◽  
Alison Eastwood ◽  
Gillian Parker
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
High Quality ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Meta Review

Objective To update a 2010 meta-review of systematic reviews of effective interventions to support carers of ill, disabled, or older adults. In this article, we report the most promising interventions based on the best available evidence. Methods Rapid meta-review of systematic reviews published from January 2009 to 2016. Results Sixty-one systematic reviews were included (27 high quality, 25 medium quality, and nine low quality). The quality of reviews has improved since the original review, but primary studies remain limited in quality and quantity. Fourteen high quality reviews focused on carers of people with dementia, four on carers of those with cancer, four on carers of people with stroke, three on carers of those at the end of life with various conditions, and two on carers of people with mental health problems. Multicomponent interventions featured prominently, emphasizing psychosocial or psychoeducational content, education and training. Improved outcomes for carers were reported for mental health, burden and stress, and wellbeing or quality of life. Negative effects were reported in reviews of respite care. As with earlier work, we found little robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of reviewed interventions. Conclusions There is no ‘one size fits all’ intervention to support carers. There is potential for effective support in specific groups of carers, such as shared learning, cognitive reframing, meditation, and computer-delivered psychosocial support for carers of people with dementia. For carers of people with cancer, effective support may include psychosocial interventions, art therapy, and counselling. Carers of people with stroke may also benefit from counselling. More good quality, theory-based, primary research is needed.

Palliative Care Emergencies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sriram Yennurajalingam
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Superior Vena ◽  
Cord Compression ◽  
Risk And Benefit ◽  
Life Decision ◽  
Exacerbation Of Symptoms

Palliative care emergencies are both cancer and non-cancer-related events that demand immediate remedy or action because they cause acute exacerbation of symptoms that affect quality of life. Decision-making with regard to the type of treatment for these emergencies is critical and should be based on (a) reversibility of the problem, (b) improvement/maintenance of the patient’s quality of life with reversal, (c) the patient’s general condition and prognosis, (d) patient and family goals, and (e) the risk and benefit of treatment versus distress of symptoms. Common emergencies include spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia, impeding pathological fracture, superior vena caval syndrome, seizures, bleeding, and uncontrolled symptoms such as pain and dyspnea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document