McCarter Kristen, Britton Ben, Baker Amanda L, Halpin Sean A, Beck Alison K, Carter Gregory, Wratten Chris, Bauer Judith, Forbes Erin, Booth Debbie, Wolfenden Luke
School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 5;8(1):e017959. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017959.
The primary aim of the review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to improve clinician provision of psychosocial distress screening and referral of patients with cancer.
Systematic review.
Electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)) were searched until July 2016.
Population: adult patients with cancer and clinical staff members.
any strategy that aimed to improve the rate of routine screening and referral for detected distress of patients with cancer. Comparison: no intervention controls, 'usual' practice or alternative interventions.
(primary) any measure of provision of screening and/or referral for distress, (secondary) psychosocial distress, unintended adverse effects.
trials with or without a temporal comparison group, including randomised and non-randomised trials, and uncontrolled pre-post studies.
Two review authors independently extracted data. Heterogeneity across studies precluded quantitative assessment via meta-analysis and so a narrative synthesis of the results is presented.
Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were set in oncology clinics or departments and used multiple implementation strategies. Using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, the overall rating of the certainty of the body of evidence reported in this review was assessed as very low. Three studies received a methodological quality rating of weak and two studies received a rating of moderate. Only one of the five studies reported a significant improvement in referrals.
The review identified five studies of predominantly poor quality examining the effectiveness of strategies to improve the routine implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer. Future research using robust research designs, including randomised assignment, are needed to identify effective support strategies to maximise the potential for successful implementation of distress screening and referral for patients with cancer.
CRD42015017518.
本综述的主要目的是确定改善临床医生对癌症患者进行心理社会痛苦筛查及转诊的策略的有效性。
系统综述。
检索电子数据库(Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO以及护理与健康相关文献累积索引(CINAHL))直至2016年7月。
人群:成年癌症患者及临床工作人员。
任何旨在提高癌症患者已检测出痛苦的常规筛查及转诊率的策略。对照:无干预对照组、“常规”做法或替代干预措施。
(主要)任何关于痛苦筛查和/或转诊提供情况的指标,(次要)心理社会痛苦、意外不良影响。
有或无时间比较组的试验,包括随机和非随机试验以及无对照的前后对照研究。
两名综述作者独立提取数据。研究间的异质性使得无法通过荟萃分析进行定量评估,因此呈现结果的叙述性综合分析。
五项研究符合纳入标准。所有研究均在肿瘤诊所或科室开展,并采用了多种实施策略。使用推荐分级、评估、制定与评价方法,本综述中报告的证据体确定性的总体评级被评估为极低。三项研究的方法学质量评级为弱,两项研究的评级为中等。五项研究中只有一项报告转诊有显著改善。
本综述确定了五项主要质量较差的研究,这些研究考察了改善癌症患者痛苦筛查及转诊常规实施的策略的有效性。需要采用包括随机分配在内的稳健研究设计进行未来研究,以确定有效的支持策略,最大限度地提高成功实施癌症患者痛苦筛查及转诊的可能性。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42015017518。