Dataset Information

Palliative care for the management of chronic illness: a systematic review study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Chronic illnesses are marked by fluctuations and variations over time. Individuals with chronic illness experience pain and other symptoms that are not always adequately managed. Their caregivers often have to deal with enormous burden as the illness progresses. Palliative care can serve as an intervention to manage chronic illness, not just at the end of life but also in the early phases of illness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Randomised and non-randomised studies will be included in the systematic review. The focus will be on non-cancer chronic illness. Sources of data will be from PubMed and other databases and will include the reference list of studies included in the systematic review. The primary outcome will be to assess the efficacy of palliative care on chronic illness. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, care giver burden, quality of care and cost-effectiveness of interventions. The study population will consist of patients aged 18 years or over. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:For purposes of privacy and confidentiality, the systematic review will be limited to studies with de-identified data. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of review findings will be disseminated directly to appropriate audiences via email and other modes of communication. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPEROCRD42011001794.

SUBMITTER: Effiong A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3358622 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Palliative care for the management of chronic illness: a systematic review study protocol.

Effiong Andem A Effiong Andem I AI

BMJ open 20120521 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Chronic illnesses are marked by fluctuations and variations over time. Individuals with chronic illness experience pain and other symptoms that are not always adequately managed. Their caregivers often have to deal with enormous burden as the illness progresses. Palliative care can serve as an intervention to manage chronic illness, not just at the end of life but also in the early phases of illness.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>Randomised and non-randomised studies will be i ...[more]

PMID: 22614173

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe prevention and relief of suffering are regarded as a goal at the end of life; therefore, suffering assessment at the end of life is essential. In this regard, we need instruments that allow us to evaluate this construct for gathering more evidence, as the assessment of suffering is increasingly used in research and the clinical setting. Many measures have been designed to assess this construct, and the selection of the most appropriate instrument is crucial. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties and (2) evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties.Methods and analysisThe protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. A systematic psychometric review of measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties will be carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Searches will be conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Open Grey, Scopus, Web of Science and COSMIN database of systematic reviews, and it will be limited by time (1980-2018) and language (only literature in English and Spanish). Literature will be evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the COSMIN checklist, and measurement properties data of each study that meet the inclusion criteria will be scored independently by two researchers according to COSMIN quality ratings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.Prospero registration numberCRD42018106488.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing attention to palliative care for the general population has led to the development of various evidence-based or consensus-based tools and interventions. However, specific tools and interventions are needed for people with severe mental illness (SMI) who have a life-threatening illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific evidence on tools and interventions in palliative care for this group.MethodsSystematic searches were done in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase databases, supplemented by reference tracking, searches on the internet with free text terms, and consultations with experts to identify relevant literature. Empirical studies with qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs concerning tools and interventions for use in palliative care for people with SMI were included. Methodological quality was assessed using a critical appraisal instrument for heterogeneous study designs. Stepwise study selection and the assessment of methodological quality were done independently by two review authors.ResultsFour studies were included, reporting on a total of two tools and one multi-component intervention. One study concerned a tool to identify the palliative phase in patients with SMI. This tool appeared to be usable only in people with SMI with a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, two related studies focused on a tool to involve people with SMI in discussions about medical decisions at the end of life. This tool was assessed as feasible and usable in the target group. One other study concerned the Dutch national Care Standard for palliative care, including a multi-component intervention. The Palliative Care Standard also appeared to be feasible and usable in a mental healthcare setting, but required further tailoring to suit this specific setting. None of the included studies investigated the effects of the tools and interventions on quality of life or quality of care.ConclusionsStudies of palliative care tools and interventions for people with SMI are scarce. The existent tools and intervention need further development and should be tailored to the care needs and settings of these people. Further research is needed on the feasibility, usability and effects of tools and interventions for palliative care for people with SMI.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Worldwide, an estimated 40?million people are in need of palliative care each year, but only 14% receive it. The incidence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients receiving palliative care is higher than in the general population. This association is intended to grow as a result of the rising burden of DM worldwide, ageing populations and the improved overall survival time of several diseases over the last few decades. Recommendations for DM management in the context of palliative care are mainly based on expert opinion as there is a lack of suitable evidence base and randomised clinical trials in palliative care are scarce. The aim of our systematic review is to identify the best DM management practices in order to reduce important DM-related symptoms and acute complications in patients receiving palliative care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The authors will study the DM treatment and management literature, surveying the different approaches employed to treat adult palliative patients. Core health bibliographic databases will be searched from January 1990 to May 2019. Data sources will include Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and grey literature. Details regarding diet, oral and injectable glucose-lowering medicines, insulin regimens and blood glucose monitoring strategies will be evaluated. We defined the primary outcomes to compare between DM management approaches as the presence of symptoms (polyuria, polydipsia and polyphagia) and acute complications of DM (hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar state and diabetic ketoacidosis), and secondary outcomes as hospital admissions and deaths due to DM-related complications, health-related quality of life and glycaemic control. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The systematic review methodology does not require ethics approval due to the nature of the study design. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be publicly available. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018115772.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary and community care are key settings for the effective management of long term conditions. We aimed to evaluate the pattern of health outcomes in chronic disease management interventions for adults with physical health problems implemented in primary or community care settings. METHODS:The methods were based on our previous review published in 2006. We performed database searches for articles published from 2006 to 2014 and conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy to classify interventions and outcomes. The interventions were mapped to Chronic Care Model elements. The pattern of outcomes related to interventions was summarized by frequency of statistically significant improvements in health care provision and patient outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 9589 journal articles were retrieved from database searches and snowballing. After screening and verification, 165 articles that detailed 157 studies were included. There were few studies with Health Care Organization (1.9% of studies) or Community Resources (0.6% of studies) as the primary intervention element. Self-Management Support interventions (45.8% of studies) most frequently resulted in improvements in patient-level outcomes. Delivery System Design interventions (22.6% of studies) showed benefits in both professional and patient-level outcomes for a narrow range of conditions. Decision Support interventions (21.3% of studies) had impact limited to professional-level outcomes, in particular use of medications. The small number of studies of Clinical Information System interventions (8.9%) showed benefits for both professional- and patient-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:The published literature has expanded substantially since 2006. This review confirms that Self-Management Support is the most frequent Chronic Care Model intervention that is associated with statistically significant improvements, predominately for diabetes and hypertension.

Project description:ImportanceThe evidence for palliative care exists predominantly for patients with cancer. The effect of palliative care on important end-of-life outcomes in patients with noncancer illness is unclear.ObjectiveTo measure the association between palliative care and acute health care use, quality of life (QOL), and symptom burden in adults with chronic noncancer illnesses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed from inception to April 18, 2020.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of palliative care interventions in adults with chronic noncancer illness. Studies involving at least 50% of patients with cancer were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data from studies. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all trials. All outcomes were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresAcute health care use (hospitalizations and emergency department use), disease-generic and disease-specific quality of life (QOL), and symptoms, with estimates of QOL translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (range, 0 [worst] to 184 [best]; minimal clinically important difference, 9 points) and symptoms translated to units of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale global distress score (range, 0 [best] to 90 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 5.7 points).ResultsTwenty-eight trials provided data on 13 664 patients (mean age, 74 years; 46% were women). Ten trials were of heart failure (n = 4068 patients), 11 of mixed disease (n = 8119), 4 of dementia (n = 1036), and 3 of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 441). Palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less emergency department use (9 trials [n = 2712]; 20% vs 24%; odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68-1.00]; I2 = 3%), less hospitalization (14 trials [n = 3706]; 38% vs 42%; odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.99]; I2 = 41%), and modestly lower symptom burden (11 trials [n = 2598]; pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.12; [95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03]; I2 = 0%; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score mean difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.4]). Palliative care was not significantly associated with disease-generic QOL (6 trials [n = 1334]; SMD, 0.18 [95% CI, -0.24 to 0.61]; I2 = 87%; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care score mean difference, 4.7 [95% CI, -6.3 to 15.9]) or disease-specific measures of QOL (11 trials [n = 2204]; SMD, 0.07 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.23]; I2 = 68%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of patients with primarily noncancer illness, palliative care, compared with usual care, was statistically significantly associated with less acute health care use and modestly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life. Analyses for some outcomes were based predominantly on studies of patients with heart failure, which may limit generalizability to other chronic illnesses.

Project description:Available systematic reviews showed uncertainty on the effectiveness of using acupuncture and related therapies for palliative cancer care. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize current best evidence on acupuncture and related therapies for palliative cancer care. Five international and 3 Chinese databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture and related therapies with conventional or sham treatments were considered. Primary outcomes included fatigue, paresthesia and dysesthesias, chronic pain, anorexia, insomnia, limb edema, constipation, and health-related quality of life, of which effective conventional interventions are limited. Thirteen RCTs were included. Compared with conventional interventions, meta-analysis demonstrated that acupuncture and related therapies significantly reduced pain (2 studies, n = 175, pooled weighted mean difference: -0.76, 95% confidence interval: -0.14 to -0.39) among patients with liver or gastric cancer. Combined use of acupuncture and related therapies and Chinese herbal medicine improved quality of life in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (2 studies, n = 111, pooled standard mean difference: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.13). Acupressure showed significant efficacy in reducing fatigue in lung cancer patients when compared with sham acupressure. Adverse events for acupuncture and related therapies were infrequent and mild. Acupuncture and related therapies are effective in reducing pain, fatigue, and in improving quality of life when compared with conventional intervention alone among cancer patients. Limitations on current evidence body imply that they should be used as a complement, rather than an alternative, to conventional care. Effectiveness of acupuncture and related therapies for managing anorexia, reducing constipation, paresthesia and dysesthesia, insomnia, and limb edema in cancer patients is uncertain, warranting future RCTs in these areas.

Dataset Information

Palliative care for the management of chronic illness: a systematic review study protocol.

Publications

Palliative care for the management of chronic illness: a systematic review study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets