School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Banyo, Queensland, Australia.
, PO Box 456, Virginia, 4014, Australia.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Sep 12;17(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0411-8.
Although there has been growing research on the burden of treatment, the current state of evidence on measuring this concept is unknown. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge as well as clear recommendations for future research, within the context of chronic disease.
Four health-based databases, Scopus, CINAHL, Medline, and PsychInfo, were comprehensively searched for peer-reviewed articles published between the periods of 2000-2016. Titles and abstracts were independently read by two authors. All discrepancies between the authors were resolved by a third author. Data was extracted using a standardized proforma and a comparison analysis was used in order to explore the key treatment burden measures and categorize them into three groups.
Database searching identified 1458 potential papers. After removal of duplications, and irrelevant articles by title, 1102 abstracts remained. An additional 22 papers were added via snowball searching. In the end, 101 full papers were included in the review. A large number of the studies involved quantitative measures and conceptualizations of treatment burden (n = 64; 63.4%), and were conducted in North America (n = 49; 48.5%). There was significant variation in how the treatment burden experienced by those with chronic disease was operationalized and measured.
Despite significant work, there is still much ground to cover to comprehensively measure treatment burden for chronic disease. Greater qualitative focus, more research with cultural and minority populations, a larger emphasis on longitudinal studies and the consideration of the potential effects of "identity" on treatment burden, should be considered.
尽管关于治疗负担的研究越来越多,但目前对于衡量这一概念的证据状况尚不清楚。本范围综述旨在概述目前的知识状况,并为未来的研究提供明确的建议,范围限于慢性病。
全面检索了四个健康数据库,即 Scopus、CINAHL、Medline 和 PsychInfo,以查找 2000-2016 年间发表的同行评审文章。两位作者独立阅读标题和摘要。作者之间的所有分歧均由第三位作者解决。使用标准化表格提取数据,并使用比较分析来探索关键的治疗负担衡量标准,并将其分为三组。
数据库搜索确定了 1458 篇潜在论文。去除重复项和标题不相关的文章后,仍有 1102 篇摘要。通过滚雪球搜索又增加了 22 篇论文。最终,有 101 篇全文被纳入综述。大量研究涉及定量衡量和概念化治疗负担(n=64;63.4%),并且在北美进行(n=49;48.5%)。慢性病患者所经历的治疗负担的操作和衡量方法存在很大差异。
尽管已经做了大量工作,但要全面衡量慢性病的治疗负担,仍有许多工作要做。应更多地关注定性研究、更多地针对文化和少数族裔人群进行研究、更加重视纵向研究以及考虑“身份”对治疗负担的潜在影响。