Griffin Joan M, Meis Laura A, MacDonald Roderick, Greer Nancy, Jensen Agnes, Rutks Indulis, Wilt Timothy J
Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, One Veterans Drive, Mailstop 152, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA,
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Sep;29(9):1274-82. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2873-2. Epub 2014 May 20.
Family and caregiver interventions typically aim to develop family members' coping and caregiving skills and to reduce caregiver burden. We conducted a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating whether family-involved interventions improve patient outcomes among adults with cancer.
RCTs enrolling patients with cancer were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycInfo and other sources through December 2012. Studies were limited to subjects over 18 years of age, published in English language, and conducted in the United States. Patient outcomes included global quality of life; physical, general psychological and social functioning; depression/anxiety; symptom control and management; health care utilization; and relationship adjustment.
We identified 27 unique trials, of which 18 compared a family intervention to usual care or wait list (i.e., usual care with promise of intervention at completion of study period) and 13 compared one family intervention to another individual or family intervention (active control). Compared to usual care, overall strength of evidence for family interventions was low. The available data indicated that overall, family-involved interventions did not consistently improve outcomes of interest. Similarly, with low or insufficient evidence, family-involved interventions were not superior to active controls at improving cancer patient outcomes.
Overall, there was low or insufficient evidence that family and caregiver interventions were superior to usual or active care. Variability in study populations and interventions made pooling of data problematic and generalizing findings from any single study difficult. Most of the included trials were of poor or fair quality.
家庭及照护者干预通常旨在培养家庭成员的应对及照护技能,并减轻照护者负担。我们对已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价,以评估家庭参与干预是否能改善成年癌症患者的预后。
通过检索截至2012年12月的MEDLINE、PsycInfo及其他来源,确定纳入癌症患者的随机对照试验。研究限于18岁以上的受试者,以英文发表,并在美国进行。患者预后包括总体生活质量、身体、一般心理及社会功能、抑郁/焦虑、症状控制与管理、医疗保健利用及关系调适。
我们确定了27项独特的试验,其中18项将家庭干预与常规护理或等待名单(即研究期结束时承诺进行干预的常规护理)进行比较,13项将一种家庭干预与另一种个体或家庭干预(积极对照)进行比较。与常规护理相比,家庭干预的总体证据强度较低。现有数据表明,总体而言,家庭参与干预并未持续改善相关预后。同样,由于证据不足或不充分,家庭参与干预在改善癌症患者预后方面并不优于积极对照。
总体而言,证据不足或不充分表明家庭及照护者干预优于常规或积极护理。研究人群和干预措施的差异使得数据汇总存在问题,且难以从任何单一研究中归纳出结论。纳入的试验大多质量较差或一般。