Hospitalisation à Domicile Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Pharmacie à Usage intérieure, Paris, France.
UFR Médecine Paris-Ile-de-France-Ouest Université Versailles St-Quentin, Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 1168 INSERM, UVSQ, VIMA, Villejuif, France.
BMJ Open. 2018 May 9;8(5):e020594. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020594.
Despite the demonstrated feasibility and policies to enable more to receive chemotherapy at home, in a few countries, parenteral chemotherapy administration at home remains currently marginal. Of note, findings of different studies on health outcomes and resources utilisation vary, leading to conflicting results. This protocol outlines a systematic review that seeks to synthesise and critically appraise the current state of evidence on the comparison between home setting and hospital setting for parenteral chemotherapy administration within the same high standards of clinical care.
This protocol has been prepared following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols approach. Electronic searches will be conducted on bibliographic databases selected from the earliest available data through 15 November 2017 published in French and English languages. Additional potential papers in the selected studies and grey literature will be also included in the review. The review will include all types of studies exploring patients receiving anticancer drugs for injection at home compared with patients receiving the drugs in a hospital setting, and will assess at least one of the following criteria: patients' health outcomes, patients' or caregivers' satisfaction, resource utilisation with cost savings, and incentives and/or barriers of each admission setting according to patients' and relatives' points of view. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract relevant data from the included studies. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the 'Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies' developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool, in addition to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement for economic studies.
As the review is focused on the analysis of secondary data, it does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be disseminated through articles in peer-reviewed journals and trade publications, as well as presentations at relevant conferences.
CRD42017068164.
尽管已经证明在一些国家，更多人可以在家中接受化疗，并且有政策支持这一做法，但在家中进行静脉化疗的情况仍然很少见。值得注意的是，不同研究关于健康结果和资源利用的结果存在差异，导致结果相互矛盾。本方案概述了一项系统评价，旨在综合和批判性地评估在相同高标准临床护理下，静脉化疗给药的家庭环境与医院环境之间的比较的现有证据状况。
本方案遵循系统评价和荟萃分析报告标准的建议进行准备。将对从最早可用数据开始至 2017 年 11 月 15 日以法语和英语发表的选定文献数据库进行电子检索。还将包括所选研究中的其他潜在论文和灰色文献。该综述将包括所有类型的研究，这些研究探索在家中接受注射抗癌药物的患者与在医院环境中接受药物的患者相比，评估以下至少一个标准：患者的健康结果、患者或护理人员的满意度、资源利用和成本节约，以及根据患者和亲属的观点激励和/或每个入院环境的障碍。两名审查员将独立筛选研究并从纳入研究中提取相关数据。研究的方法学质量将使用有效公共卫生实践项目工具开发的“定量研究质量评估工具”以及针对经济研究的综合健康经济评估报告标准声明进行评估。
由于该综述重点是对二次数据的分析，因此不需要伦理批准。该研究的结果将通过同行评议期刊和专业出版物上的文章以及相关会议上的演示进行传播。
PROSPERO 注册号：CRD42017068164。
