Interventions for Maximizing Quality Communication in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Background: Clinician communication has shown to influence cancer patients' perception of care and satisfaction. Effective communication is therefore a critical aspect of patient-centered care. Health services should be implementing evidence-based communication interventions to improve the provision of cancer care to patients. Aim: We conducted a systematic review of the literature with the aim to identify effective communication strategies and/or interventions to improve clinician-patient communication. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL Plus) were searched for relevant citations from 2005 until October 2015 using search terms related to “cancer”, “information” and “communication”. Titles and abstracts were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Selected full text publications were assessed against the eligibility criteria. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR guidelines and GRADE. Due to the enormity of the literature, only systematic reviews were included. Results: The database search yielded 2934 unique citations, of which 198 full texts were retrieved. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 41 systematic reviews were included. The included studies were broadly categorized under six major themes: e-health, technological and telephone-based interventions (n=9); patient education and tools (n=5); communication training (n=9); education interventions to improve cancer pain (n=6); tools to facilitate patients' participation in care/decision making (n=8); nurse delivered interventions (n=6). Conclusion: There are an enormous number of studies of communication interventions for cancer patients. The quality of the evidence to support some of these interventions is low; whereas other interventions have stronger evidence of effectiveness. Therefore, health services and clinicians should carefully consider which interventions they choose to implement. The recommendations from this review will assist clinicians and health services to choose evidence-based interventions which can improve care provision and/or patient outcomes.

Download Full-text

Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.9812 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Chiara Marzorati ◽

Chiara Renzi ◽

Samuel William Russell-Edu ◽

Gabriella Pravettoni

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

User Satisfaction ◽

Family Members ◽

Well Being ◽

Point Of View ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Web Based

BACKGROUND The number of published studies and systematic reviews examining different telehealth interventions targeting patients and their effects on patients’ well-being and quality of life have grown in recent decades. However, the use of telemedicine tools aimed at the family members and caregivers of adult cancer patients is less defined. OBJECTIVE We aimed to conduct a systematic review to provide a more complete picture regarding telemedicine tools for informal caregivers (usually family members or close friends) implemented in all phases of cancer care. More specifically, the review aimed to better describe the study samples’ characteristics, to analyze measured outcomes and the specific questionnaires used to assess them, and to describe in depth the implemented interventions and their formats. Finally, we examined the role of telehealth, and usability and feasibility trends in supporting patients’ caregivers. METHODS We systematically searched the literature in the following databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. Inclusion criteria were being written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, describing a telehealth-implemented intervention, and focusing on caregivers of adult cancer patients at any stage of the disease. We selected studies published up to November 2017. We critically appraised included articles using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and graded the quality of evidence by outcome using the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework. RESULTS We included 24 studies in the final selection. In 21 of the 24 studies, the patient-caregiver dyad was analyzed, and the study population dealt with different types of cancer at different stages. Included studies considered the caregiver’s condition from both an individual and a relational point of view. Along with psychosocial variables, some studies monitored engagement and user satisfaction regarding Web-based platforms or telehealth interventions. All studies reported significant improvements in some of the investigated areas, but they often showed small effect sizes. Two types of telehealth intervention formats were used: Web-based platforms and telephone calls. Some of the included studies referred to the same project, but on study samples with different cancer diagnoses or with new versions of previously developed interventions. CONCLUSIONS Reported outcomes seem to suggest that we are in an exploratory phase. More detailed and targeted research hypotheses are still needed. Clarifying caregivers’ needs related to telehealth tools and better defining outcome measures may yield more significant results.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Services: A Systematic Review

10.31661/gmj.v9i0.1645 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 1645

Author(s):

Ali Ayoubian ◽

Amir Ashkan Nasiripour ◽

Seyed Jamaledin Tabibi ◽

Mohammadkarim Bahadori

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Service ◽

Health Services ◽

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Healthcare Management ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Care Health ◽

Evidence Based Healthcare

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an ambition for health service administrators. We aimed to systematically review the major relevant articles in case of barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based practice in health services. Methods and Materials: The type of study was a systematic review. We searched the libraries and online sources such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Wiley, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Google scholar. We used keywords included “Evidence-Based Practice”, “Evidence-Based Management”, “Healthcare”, “Care Management, Evidence-Based Healthcare Management”, “Health Care”, Health”, “Barrier”, “Facilitator”, policy and “Evidence-Based Healthcare”. Results: In total, 12 studies were included. Several barriers and facilitators were recognized through the included papers, the factors such as organization support and a helpful education system improved skills, knowledge, and confidence to EBP. The outcomes of studies were identified as the employ of the internet as a highest-rated skill for increasing EBP quality. Conclusion: Generally, the results showed health service administrators should first identify barriers of EBP then transferred them to facilitators to the implementation of proper and efficient EBP. [GMJ.2020;9:e1645]

Download Full-text

Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth ◽

10.1186/s12884-020-03496-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ryan Chow ◽

Eileen Huang ◽

Allen Li ◽

Sophie Li ◽

Sarah Y. Fu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Postpartum Depression ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

A Priori ◽

Behavioural Therapy ◽

Therapeutic Interventions ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Evidence-Based Podiatric Medicine

Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association ◽

10.7547/0980260 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 99 (3) ◽

pp. 260-266 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Fiona Hawke ◽

Joshua Burns ◽

Karl B. Landorf

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Medical Literature ◽

Cochrane Collaboration ◽

The United States ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Free Access ◽

Evidence Based ◽

User Friendliness ◽

The Cochrane Library

Due to the exponential increase in the quantity and quality of podiatric medicine–related research during the past decade, podiatric physicians are inundated with an insurmountable volume of research relevant to clinical practice. Systematic reviews can refine this literature by using explicit, rigorous, and reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize the best evidence from all clinical trials to answer clearly defined clinical questions. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit organization created to improve the user-friendliness and accessibility of medical literature mainly through preparing and maintaining systematic reviews of health-care interventions. The Cochrane Library currently contains more than 50 podiatric medicine–relevant systematic reviews summarizing and synthesizing evidence from many hundreds of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for foot problems. Although more than 60 countries worldwide have open online access to The Cochrane Library, in the United States, only the state of Wyoming has free access to full-text reviews. In an era demanding an evidence-based approach for every clinical intervention, high-quality systematic reviews streamline podiatric medical literature by reducing the time, cost, and training necessary to establish a solid evidence base for practice. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(3): 260–266, 2009)

Download Full-text

Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine ◽

10.2190/pm.43.2.c ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 129-151 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽

Ranak B. Trivedi ◽

Jennifer McDuffie ◽

Ian Kronish ◽

Dinesh Benjamin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Problem Solving ◽

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Behavioral Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cognitive Behavioral ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Brief Psychotherapy ◽

Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals in the emergency department: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023464 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. e023464 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marica Cassarino ◽

Katie Robinson ◽

Rosie Quinn ◽

Breda Naddy ◽

Andrew O’Regan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Emergency Department ◽

Patient Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Social Care ◽

Interdisciplinary Teams ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Early Assessment ◽

Health And Social Care ◽

The Impact

IntroductionFinding cost-effective strategies to improve patient care in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing imperative given growing numbers of ED attendees. Encouraging evidence indicates that interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals (HSCPs) enhance patient care across a variety of healthcare settings. However, to date no systematic reviews of the effectiveness of early assessment and/or interventions carried by such teams in the ED exist. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of early assessment and/or intervention carried out by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care, and to define the content of the assessment and/or intervention offered by HSCPs.Methods and analysisUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standardised guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before–after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that report the impact of early assessment and/or intervention provided to adults aged 18+ by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED. Searches will be carried in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE from inception to March 2018. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant studies. Following a two-step screening process, two independent reviewers will extract data on the type of population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The findings will be synthesised in a narrative summary, and a meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be sought since it is not required for systematic reviews. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42018091794.

Download Full-text

Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical imaging guidelines by healthcare professionals using theoretical domains framework: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BJR|Open ◽

10.1259/bjro.20210004 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 20210004

Author(s):

Harriet Nalubega Kisembo ◽

Ritah Nassanga ◽

Faith Ameda Ameda ◽

Moses Ocan ◽

Alison A Kinengyere ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Information Source ◽

Theoretical Domains Framework ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Clinical Imaging

Objectives: To identify, categorize, and develop an aggregated synthesis of evidence using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) on barriers and facilitators that influence implementation of clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in diagnostic imaging Methods: The protocol will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews and will adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-P). Information source will include databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library), internet search (https://www.google.com/scholar), experts’ opinion, professional societies/organizations websites and government bodies strategies/recommendations, and reference lists of included studies. Articles of any study design published in English from 1990 to date, having investigated factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation CIGs by HCPs will be eligible. Selecting, appraising, and extracting data from the included studies will be independently performed by at least two reviewers using validated tools and Rayyan – Systematic Review web application. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer as a tie breaker. The aggregated studies will be synthesized using thematic analysis guided by TDF. Results: Identified barriers will be defined a priori and mapped into 7 TDF domains including knowledge, awareness, effectiveness, time, litigationand financial incentives Conclusion: The results will provide an insight into a theory-based approach to predict behavior-related determinants for implementing CIGs and develop strategies/interventions to target the elicited behaviors. Recommendations will be made if the level of evidence is sufficient Advances in knowledge: Resource-constrained settings that are in the process of adopting CIGs may opt for this strategy to predict in advance likely impediments to achieving the goal of CIG implementation and develop tailored interventions during the planning phase. Systematic review Registration: PROSPERO ID = CRD42020136372 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Download Full-text

Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

10.1101/2021.05.28.21257980 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yuki Seidler ◽

Erika Mosor ◽

Margaret R Andrews ◽

Carolina Watson ◽

Nick Bott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Outcome Measurement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Screening Process ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

Download Full-text

Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.18005.2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 221 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Assem M. Khamis ◽

Lara A. Kahale ◽

Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽

Holger J. Schünemann ◽

Elie A. Akl

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Systematic Review Methodology ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Prospective Longitudinal ◽

Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Download Full-text