Departamento de Fisioterapia, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain; CTS 1110, UMSS Research Group, Andalusia, Spain.
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Facultad de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2023 Dec;67:102411. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2023.102411. Epub 2023 Sep 13.
To assess the comparative effect of patient education modalities (online, telephonic, mixed, in-person meetings) on the improvement of quality-of-life in breast cancer survivors.
A search was conducted in different databases, being only included randomised controlled trials. The methodological quality and the risk of bias were assessed following the criteria of PEDro and Cochrane Rob-2 tools, respectively. The certainty of the evidence was judged using the GRADE tool. These evaluations were performed by two independent reviewers. When possible, data was pooled in a network meta-analysis (95% confidence interval [CI]).
Fourteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis (1632 participants) and 11 in the quantitative (1482 participants). Network comparisons revealed that mixed educational modality was the highest ranked intervention at short (MD = 0.62; 95% CI [-0.35, 1.6]) and long -term (MD = 1.1; 95% CI [-1.5, 3.8); the control condition was the last in both cases, with a good convergence of the model observed. However, comparisons did not show significant differences.
Health policies could benefit from mixed modalities of patient education as it is expected to generate socio-economical savings and promote patient self-management. Probably, online mixed modalities, i.e. virtual face to face meetings, could be a more up-to-date option that fit best to nowadays patients' lifestyle. However, the limitations of this review force us to interpret our results with caution.
评估患者教育模式(在线、电话、混合、面对面会议)对改善乳腺癌幸存者生活质量的比较效果。
在不同的数据库中进行了搜索,仅纳入了随机对照试验。分别按照 PEDro 和 Cochrane Rob-2 工具的标准评估了方法学质量和偏倚风险。使用 GRADE 工具判断证据的确定性。这些评估由两名独立的评审员进行。在可能的情况下,数据在网络荟萃分析(95%置信区间[CI])中进行了汇总。
定性综合分析纳入了 14 项研究(1632 名参与者),定量分析纳入了 11 项研究(1482 名参与者)。网络比较显示,混合教育模式是短期(MD=0.62;95%CI [-0.35, 1.6])和长期(MD=1.1;95%CI [-1.5, 3.8])排名最高的干预措施;对照组在两种情况下均排名最后,模型观察到良好的收敛。然而,比较并未显示出显著差异。
健康政策可能受益于混合患者教育模式,因为预计它将产生社会效益经济节约并促进患者自我管理。可能,在线混合模式,即虚拟面对面会议,可能是一种更新的选择,最适合当今患者的生活方式。然而,本综述的局限性迫使我们谨慎解释我们的结果。