Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
, Berlin, Germany.
Syst Rev. 2022 Aug 13;11(1):169. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02027-x.
Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the "gold standard" of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care.
We systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and Embase) for studies published between 1997 and 2021. Additional studies were identified through citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (NRS). The included controlled before-and-after study (CBA) was assessed using both the ROBINS-I and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) quality criteria. Results were synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of extracted data.
The search yielded 10,213 records, from which 22 studies (16 RCTs, five NRS, and one CBA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all but five studies, RoB was assessed as being high (RoB 2) resp. critical or serious (ROBINS-I). Within these 22 studies, nine inductively derived outcomes were assessed: (i) quality of life, (ii) coping, (iii) functional ability and health status, (iv) psychiatric morbidity, (v) pain, (vi) managing one's own health care, (vii) treatment success, (viii) satisfaction, and (ix) therapeutic relationship. While some studies do not report effect estimates, and some of the reported effects appear to be imprecisely estimated, the overall results indicate that IPC may affect PRO positively across all outcomes.
Due to high clinical heterogeneity and high RoB, the question whether IPC affects PRO cannot be answered conclusively. Methodically rigorous studies are needed in order to answer the question of effectiveness of IPC.
PROSPERO CRD42017073900.
跨专业协作（IPC）被视为综合护理的“金标准”，但缺乏可信的证据表明其对患者报告的结果（PRO）有影响。本系统评价的目的是研究 IPC 对住院患者 PRO 的影响。
我们系统地检索了六个电子数据库（PubMed、Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index、CENTRAL（Cochrane 图书馆）、Current Contents（LIVIVO）、CINAHL 和 Embase），以获取 1997 年至 2021 年期间发表的研究。通过引文追踪、手动搜索互联网和 Google Scholar 以及咨询专家，确定了其他研究。使用 RoB 2 工具评估随机对照试验（RCT）的偏倚风险（RoB）和非随机研究（NRS）的 ROBINS-I。对包括的对照前后研究（CBA）使用 ROBINS-I 和有效实践和组织护理（EPOC）质量标准进行评估。结果通过叙述描述、分组和提取数据的主题分析进行综合。
搜索产生了 10213 条记录，其中 22 项研究（16 项 RCT、5 项 NRS 和 1 项 CBA）符合纳入标准。除了五项研究外，所有研究的 RoB 均被评估为高（RoB 2）或严重（ROBINS-I）。在这 22 项研究中，评估了九个归纳得出的结果：（i）生活质量，（ii）应对能力，（iii）功能能力和健康状况，（iv）精神发病率，（v）疼痛，（vi）管理自己的医疗保健，（vii）治疗效果，（viii）满意度，和（ix）治疗关系。虽然有些研究没有报告效应估计值，而且有些报告的效应似乎估计不准确，但总体结果表明，IPC 可能会对所有结果产生积极的影响。
由于临床异质性高且 RoB 高，IPC 是否影响 PRO 尚不能得出明确结论。需要进行方法严谨的研究，以回答 IPC 有效性的问题。
PROSPERO CRD42017073900。
Zotero 插件