Dataset Information

Case management used to optimize cancer care pathways: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reports of inadequate cancer patient care have given rise to various interventions to support cancer care pathways which, overall, seem poorly studied. Case management (CM) is one method that may support a cost-effective, high-quality patient-centred treatment and care.The purpose of this article was to summarise intervention characteristics, outcomes of interest, results, and validity components of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining CM as a method for optimizing cancer care pathways.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for RCTs published all years up to August 2008. Identified papers were included if they passed the following standards.

Inclusion criteria

1) The intervention should meet the criteria for CM which includes multidisciplinary collaboration, care co-ordination, and it should include in-person meetings between patient and the case manager aimed at supporting, informing and educating the patient. 2) The intervention should focus on cancer patient care. 3) The intervention should aim to improve subjective or objective quality outcomes, and effects should be reported in the paper.

Exclusion criteria

Studies centred on cancer screening or palliative cancer care.Data extraction was conducted in order to obtain a descriptive overview of intervention characteristics, outcomes of interest and findings. Elements of CONSORT guidelines and checklists were used to assess aspects of study validity.

Results

The searches identified 654 unique papers, of which 25 were retrieved for scrutiny. Seven papers were finally included. Intervention characteristics, outcomes studied, findings and methodological aspects were all very diverse.

Conclusion

Due to the scarcity of papers included (seven), significant heterogeneity in target group, intervention setting, outcomes measured and methodologies applied, no conclusions can be drawn about the effect of CM on cancer patient care.It is a major challenge that CM shrouds in a "black box", which means that it is difficult to determine which aspect(s) of interventions contribute to overall effects. More trials on rigorously developed CM interventions (opening up the "black box") are needed as is the re-testing of interventions and outcomes studied in various settings.

SUBMITTER: Wulff CN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2596122 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Case management used to optimize cancer care pathways: a systematic review.

Wulff Christian N CN Thygesen Marianne M Søndergaard Jens J Vedsted Peter P

BMC health services research 20081106

<h4>Background</h4>Reports of inadequate cancer patient care have given rise to various interventions to support cancer care pathways which, overall, seem poorly studied. Case management (CM) is one method that may support a cost-effective, high-quality patient-centred treatment and care.The purpose of this article was to summarise intervention characteristics, outcomes of interest, results, and validity components of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining CM as a method for ...[more]

PMID: 18986554

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntegrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They have the potential to enhance continuity of care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork and staff education. In order to inform the development of neurosurgical ICPs in the future, we performed a systematic review to aggregate examples of neurosurgical ICP, to consider their impact and design features that may be associated with their success.MethodsElectronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for relevant literature published from date of inception to July 2020. Primary studies reporting details of neurosurgical ICPs, across all pathologies and age groups were eligible for inclusion. Patient outcomes in each case were also recorded.ResultsTwenty-four studies were included in our final dataset, from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Korea, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, and a number of sub-specialties. 3 for cerebrospinal fluid diversion, 1 functional, 2 neurovascular, 1 neuro-oncology, 2 paediatric, 2 skull base, 10 spine, 1 for trauma, 2 miscellaneous (other craniotomies). All were single centre studies with no regional or national examples. Thirteen were cohort studies while 11 were case series which lacked a control group. Effectiveness was typically evaluated using hospital or professional performance metrics, such as length of stay (n = 11, 45.8%) or adverse events (n = 17, 70.8%) including readmission, surgical complications and mortality. Patient reported outcomes, including satisfaction, were evaluated infrequently (n = 3, 12.5%). All studies reported a positive impact. No study reported how the design of the ICP was informed by published literature or other methods.ConclusionsICPs have been successfully developed across numerous neurosurgical sub-specialities. However, there is often a lack of clarity over their design and weaknesses in their evaluation, including an underrepresentation of the patient's perspective.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify risk prediction models for prostate cancer (PCa) that can be used in the primary care and community health settings. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE and Embase databases combined from inception and up to the end of January 2019. ELIGIBILITY:Studies were included based on satisfying all the following criteria: (i) presenting an evaluation of PCa risk at initial biopsy in patients with no history of PCa, (ii) studies not incorporating an invasive clinical assessment or expensive biomarker/genetic tests, (iii) inclusion of at least two variables with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) being one of them, and (iv) studies reporting a measure of predictive performance. The quality of the studies and risk of bias was assessed by using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Relevant information extracted for each model included: the year of publication, source of data, type of model, number of patients, country, age, PSA range, mean/median PSA, other variables included in the model, number of biopsy cores to assess outcomes, study endpoint(s), cancer detection, model validation and model performance. RESULTS:An initial search yielded 109 potential studies, of which five met the set criteria. Four studies were cohort-based and one was a case-control study. PCa detection rate was between 20.6% and 55.8%. Area under the curve (AUC) was reported in four studies and ranged from 0.65 to 0.75. All models showed significant improvement in predicting PCa compared with being based on PSA alone. The difference in AUC between extended models and PSA alone was between 0.06 and 0.21. CONCLUSION:Only a few PCa risk prediction models have the potential to be readily used in the primary healthcare or community health setting. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential variables that could be integrated into models to improve their clinical utility for PCa testing in a community setting.

Project description:Abstract Background Surgeons routinely care for patients with life-limiting illness, requiring communication and symptom management skills supported by appropriate training. The objective of this study was to appraise and synthesize studies that assessed surgeon-directed training interventions that aimed to optimize communication and symptom management for patients with life-limiting illness. Methods A PRISMA-concordant systematic review was undertaken. MEDLINE, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until October 2022 for studies reporting on the evaluation of surgeon-training interventions intending to improve surgeons’ communication or symptom management of patients with life-limiting disease. Data on the design, trainer and patient participants, and the intervention were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed. Results Of 7794 articles, 46 were included. Most studies employed a before–after approach (29 studies) and nine included control groups with five being randomized studies. General surgery was the most frequently included sub-specialty (22 studies). Trainers were described in 25 of 46 studies. Most training interventions aimed to improve communication skills (45 studies) and 13 different training interventions were described. Eight studies reported a measurable improvement in patient care, such as increased documentation of advance care discussions. Most study outcomes focused on surgeons’ knowledge (12 studies), skills (21 studies), and confidence/comfort (18 studies) in palliative communication skills. Studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion Whilst interventions exist to improve the training of surgeons managing patients with life-threatening conditions, evidence is limited, and studies measure the direct impact on patient care insufficiently. Improved research is needed to lead to better methods for training surgeons to benefit patients. Surgeons routinely care for patients with life-limiting illness, requiring communication and symptom management skills supported by appropriate training. This systematic review found that palliative care training interventions objectively and subjectively improve surgeons’ assessed skill, knowledge, and confidence in palliative communication and symptom management. However, there is insufficient focus on patient outcomes as evidence of the impact of palliative care training.

Project description:BackgroundAn ageing population with multimorbidity is putting pressure on health systems. A popular method of managing this pressure is identification of patients in primary care 'at-risk' of hospitalisation, and delivering case management to improve outcomes and avoid admissions. However, the effectiveness of this model has not been subjected to rigorous quantitative synthesis.Methods and findingsWe carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of case management for 'at-risk' patients in primary care. Six bibliographic databases were searched using terms for 'case management', 'primary care', and a methodology filter (Cochrane EPOC group). Effectiveness compared to usual care was measured across a number of relevant outcomes: Health--self-assessed health status, mortality; Cost--total cost of care, healthcare utilisation (primary and non-specialist care and secondary care separately), and; Satisfaction--patient satisfaction. We conducted secondary subgroup analyses to assess whether effectiveness was moderated by the particular model of case management, context, and study design. A total of 15,327 titles and abstracts were screened, 36 unique studies were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in total cost, mortality, utilisation of primary or secondary care. A very small significant effect favouring case management was found for self-reported health status in the short-term (0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14). A small significant effect favouring case management was found for patient satisfaction in the short- (0.26, 0.16 to 0.36) and long-term (0.35, 0.04 to 0.66). Secondary subgroup analyses suggested the effectiveness of case management may be increased when delivered by a multidisciplinary team, when a social worker was involved, and when delivered in a setting rated as low in initial 'strength' of primary care.ConclusionsThis was the first meta-analytic review which examined the effects of case management on a wide range of outcomes and considered also the effects of key moderators. Current results do not support case management as an effective model, especially concerning reduction of secondary care use or total costs. We consider reasons for lack of effect and highlight key research questions for the future.Review protocolThe review protocol is available as part of the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42014010824).

Dataset Information

Case management used to optimize cancer care pathways: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Case management used to optimize cancer care pathways: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets