Dataset Information

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings.

Methods

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis described in this protocol is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of oncological care pathways. We will conduct a systematic search strategy to identify all relevant literature in several biomedical databases, including Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We will follow the methodology of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), and we will include randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, we will include full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses), cost analyses, and comparative resource utilization studies, if available. Two reviewers will independently screen all studies and evaluate those included for risk of bias. From these studies, we will extract data regarding patient, professional, and health systems outcomes. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Discussion

Following the protocol outlined in this article, we aim to identify, assess, and synthesize all available evidence in order to provide an evidence base on the effects of oncological care pathways as reported in the literature.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42017057592 .

SUBMITTER: van Hoeve JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5870525 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

van Hoeve Jolanda C JC Vernooij Robin W M RWM Lawal Adegboyega K AK Fiander Michelle M Nieboer Peter P Siesling Sabine S Rotter Thomas T

Systematic reviews 20180327 1

<h4>Background</h4>The high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings.<h4>Methods</h4>The ...[more]

PMID: 29580293

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The successful implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical routine faces many challenges, first and foremost the lack of consideration thereof in the patient care process. The aim of this study will be to first identify relevant barriers and facilitators and then design suitable implementation strategies which will be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of a PRO measure assessment in inpatient and outpatient cancer routine care. METHODS:During the preparation phase, interviews with oncological patients (N?=?28) and medical staff (N?=?4) as well as focus groups with medical staff (N?=?18) across five different departments caring for cancer patients were conducted. On the basis of these, qualitative content analysis revealed relevant barriers and facilitators for implementation of PROs in cancer care. Subsequently, implementation strategies and a model of implementation were developed. In the study phase, implementation strategies will be evaluated based on nine different implementation outcomes in five different oncological clinics. Evaluation of the implementation process will take place during three months in each clinic and data will be conducted pre, while and post implementation of the PRO measure. Therefore a sample size of 60 participants of whom 30 staff members and 30 participants will be questioned using existing and newly developed implementation outcome evaluation instruments. DISCUSSION:Key to improving the effectiveness of PRO assessment in the time-critical clinical environment is the utilization of easy-to-use, electronic PRO questionnaires directly linked to patients' records thereby improving consideration of PROs in patient care. In order to validate the effectiveness of this implementation process further, an evaluation parallel to implementation following an observational study design with a mixed-methods approach will be conducted. This study could contribute to the development of adequate evaluation processes of implementation of PROs to foster sustainable integration of PRO measures into routine cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/y7xce/).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Regular primary care visits may allow an opportunity to deliver high-value, proactive care. However, no previous study has examined whether more temporally regular primary care visits predict better outcomes. OBJECTIVE:To examine the relationship between the temporal regularity of primary care (PC) visits and outcomes. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS:We used Medicare claims for 378,862 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, who received PC at 1328 federally qualified health centers from 2010 to 2014. MAIN MEASURES:We created five beneficiary groups based upon their annual number of PC visits. We further subdivided those groups according to whether PC visits occurred with more or less regularity than the median value. We compared these 10 subgroups on three outcomes, adjusting for beneficiary characteristics: emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and total Medicare expenditures. We also aggregated to the clinic level and divided clinics into tertiles of more, less, and similarly regular to predicted. We compared these three groups of clinics on the same three outcomes of care. KEY RESULTS:Within each visit frequency group, beneficiaries in the subgroup with fewer regular visits had more ED visits, more hospitalizations, and higher costs. Among beneficiaries with the most frequent PC visits, the less regular subgroup had more ED visits (1.70 vs. 1.31 per person-year), more hospitalizations (0.69 vs. 0.57), and greater Medicare expenditures ($20,731 vs. $17,430, p?<?0.001 for all comparisons). Clinics whose PC visits were more regular than predicted also had better outcomes than other clinics, although the effect sizes were smaller. CONCLUSIONS:Temporal patterns of PC visits are correlated with outcomes, even among beneficiaries who appear otherwise similar. Measuring the temporal regularity of PC visits may be useful for identifying beneficiaries at risk for adverse events, and as a barometer for and an impetus to clinic-level quality improvement.

Project description:IntroductionFollowing a cancer diagnosis, patients and their caregivers face crucial decisions regarding goals of care and treatment, which have consequences that can persist throughout their cancer journey. To foster informed and value-driven treatment choices, evidence-based information on outcomes relevant to patients is needed. Traditionally, clinical studies have largely focused on a few concrete and easily measurable outcomes such as survival, disease progression and immediate treatment toxicities. These outcomes do not capture other important factors that patients consider when making treatment decisions. Patient-centred outcomes (PCOs) reflect the patients' individual values, preferences, needs and circumstances that are essential to directing meaningful and informed healthcare discussions. Often, however, these outcomes are not included in research protocols in a standardised and practical fashion. This scoping review will summarise the existing literature on PCOs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer care as well as the tools used to assess these outcomes. A comprehensive list of these PCOs will be generated for future efforts to develop a core outcome set.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework for scoping reviews. We will systematically search Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and APA PsycINFO databases for studies examining PCOs in the context of GI cancer. We will include studies published in or after the year 2000 up to the date of the final searches, with no language restrictions. Studies involving adult patients with GI cancers and discussion of any PCOs will be included. Opinion pieces, protocols, case reports and abstracts will be excluded. Two authors will independently perform two rounds of screening to select studies for inclusion. The data from full texts will be extracted, charted and summarised both quantitatively and qualitatively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required for this scoping review. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

Dataset Information

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure