Jones Terry A, Olds Timothy S, Currow David C, Williams Marie T
School of Health Sciences and Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
School of Health Sciences and Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017 Jul;54(1):139-151.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.02.015. Epub 2017 Apr 24.
Feasibility and pilot study designs are common in palliative care research. Finding standard guidelines on the structure and reporting of these study types is difficult.
In feasibility and pilot studies in palliative care research, to determine 1) how commonly a priori feasibility are criteria reported and whether results are subsequently reported against these criteria? and 2) how commonly are participants' views on acceptability of burden of the study protocol assessed?
Four databases (OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed via caresearch.com.au.) were searched. Search terms included palliative care, terminal care, advance care planning, hospice, pilot, feasibility, with a publication date between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. Articles were selected and appraised by two independent reviewers.
Fifty-six feasibility and/or pilot studies were included in this review. Only three studies had clear a priori criteria to measure success. Sixteen studies reported participant acceptability or burden with measures. Forty-eight studies concluded feasibility.
The terms "feasibility" and "pilot" are used synonymously in palliative care research when describing studies that test for feasibility. Few studies in palliative care research outline clear criteria for success. The assessment of participant acceptability and burden is uncommon. A gold standard for feasibility study design in palliative care research that includes both clear criteria for success and testing of the study protocol for participant acceptability and burden is needed. Such a standard would assist with consistency in the design, conduct and reporting of feasibility and pilot studies.
可行性研究和试点研究设计在姑息治疗研究中很常见。但很难找到关于这些研究类型的结构和报告的标准指南。
在姑息治疗研究的可行性研究和试点研究中，确定：1）预先设定的可行性标准报告的常见程度，以及随后是否根据这些标准报告结果？2）评估参与者对研究方案负担可接受性的观点的常见程度如何？
检索了四个数据库（通过caresearch.com.au检索OVID Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL和PubMed）。检索词包括姑息治疗、临终关怀、预先护理计划、临终关怀院、试点、可行性，发表日期在2012年1月1日至2013年12月31日之间。文章由两名独立评审员进行筛选和评估。
本综述纳入了56项可行性和/或试点研究。只有三项研究有明确的预先设定的衡量成功的标准。16项研究报告了参与者的可接受性或负担情况及相关测量方法。48项研究得出了可行性结论。
在姑息治疗研究中，当描述测试可行性的研究时，“可行性”和“试点”这两个术语被同义使用。姑息治疗研究中很少有研究概述明确的成功标准。对参与者可接受性和负担的评估并不常见。需要一个姑息治疗研究可行性研究设计的金标准，该标准既要包括明确的成功标准，又要测试研究方案对参与者的可接受性和负担情况。这样一个标准将有助于可行性研究和试点研究在设计、实施和报告方面的一致性。
