Dataset Information

Sources of information used by patients prior to elective surgery: a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the range and nature of available research regarding sources of information that patients access to inform their decisions about elective surgery.

Design

Scoping review.

Data sources

Peer-reviewed studies published until February 2019 from the six scientific literature databases were searched and included in the study: Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Web searches for grey literature were conducted in Google, South Australia Department of Health, Commonwealth Department of Health (Australia) and My Aged Care from the Department of Social Services (Australia).

Eligibility criteria

Studies with a focus on elective surgery information sources oriented to patients were eligible for inclusion. Only studies written in English were sought and no publication date or study restrictions were applied.

Data extraction and synthesis

Included literature was described by National Health and Medical Council hierarchy of evidence, and data were extracted on country and year of publication, type of literature, who provided it and any information on end users. Information sources were categorised by type and how information was presented.

Results

A pool of 1039 articles was reduced to 26 after screening for duplicates and non-relevant studies. Face-to-face exchanges were the most likely source of information prior to elective surgery (59.3%), printed information (55.6%) followed by e-learning (51.9%) and multimedia (14.8%). The face-to-face category included information provided by the physician/general practitioners/specialists, and family and friends. Printed information included brochures and pamphlets, e-learning consisted of internet sites or videos and the use of multimedia included different mixed media format.

Conclusion

There is considerable variability regarding the types of information patients use in their decision to undergo elective surgery. The most common source of health information (face-to-face interaction with medical personnel) raises the question that the information provided could be incomplete and/or biased, and dependent on what their health provider knew or chose to tell them.

SUBMITTER: Atlas A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6687002 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sources of information used by patients prior to elective surgery: a scoping review.

Atlas Alvin A Milanese Steve S Grimmer Karen K Barras Sarah S Stephens Jacqueline H JH

BMJ open 20190805 8

<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the range and nature of available research regarding sources of information that patients access to inform their decisions about elective surgery.<h4>Design</h4>Scoping review.<h4>Data sources</h4>Peer-reviewed studies published until February 2019 from the six scientific literature databases were searched and included in the study: Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Web searches for grey literature were conducted in Google, South A ...[more]

PMID: 31383690

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have identified substantial unmet information needs in people with depression and anxiety. Sufficient information about the disorder, treatment, available services, and strategies for self-management is essential as it may influence quality of care and patients' quality of life. This scoping review aimed to provide a broad overview of information needs of people with depression and anxiety as well as the sources that they use to seek this information.MethodsWe included all primary research published in English that investigated information needs or information sources in people with depression or anxiety, with no restrictions imposed on the study design, location, setting, or participant characteristics. Six electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LISTA, Web of Science) and the grey literature (Google and Google Scholar) were searched for relevant studies published up to November 2021. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data. Narrative synthesis was performed to identify key themes of information needs and information sources. Factors associated with information needs/sources such as demographic variables and symptom severity were also identified.ResultsFifty-six studies (comprising 8320 participants) were included. Information needs were categorised into seven themes, including general facts, treatment, lived experience, healthcare services, coping, financial/legal, and other information. The most frequently reported needs in both people with depression and anxiety were general facts and treatment information. Subclinical samples who self-reported depressive/anxious symptoms appeared less interested in treatment information than patients with clinical diagnoses. Information sources were summarised into five categories: health professionals, written materials, media, interpersonal interactions, and organisational resources. Health professionals and media (including the internet) were the most frequently adopted and preferred sources. Although few studies have examined factors associated with information needs and information sources, there is preliminary evidence that symptom severity and disease subtypes are related to information needs/sources, whereas findings on demographic factors were mixed.ConclusionsInformation needs appear to be high in people with depression and anxiety. Future research should examine differences between subgroups and associated factors such as the treatment course. Personalised information provision strategies are also needed to customise information according to individual needs and patient profiles.Trial registrationThe protocol of this scoping review was registered on Open Science Framework (OSF; link: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DF2M6 ).

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Project description:BackgroundOsteosynthesis is the internal fixation of fractures or osteotomy by mechanical devices (also called hardware). After bone healing, there are two options: one is to remove the hardware, the other is to leave it in place. The removal of the hardware in patients without medical indication (elective) is controversially discussed. We performed a scoping review to identify evidence on the elective removal of hardware in asymptomatic patients compared to retaining of the hardware to check feasibility of performing a health technology assessment. In addition, we wanted to find out which type of evidence is available.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL (November 2019). We included studies comparing asymptomatic patients with an internal fixation in the lower or upper extremities whose internal fixation was electively (without medical indication) removed or retained. We did not restrict inclusion to any effectiveness/safety outcome and considered any comparative study design as eligible. Study selection and data extraction was performed by two reviewers.ResultsWe identified 13476 titles/abstracts. Of these, we obtained 115 full-text publications which were assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria. We included 13 studies (1 RCT, 4 cohort studies, 8 before-after studies) and identified two ongoing RCTs. Nine assessed the removal of the internal fixation in the lower extremities (six of these syndesmotic screws in ankle fractures only) and two in the upper extremities. One study analysed the effectiveness of hardware removal in children in all types of extremity fractures. Outcomes reported included various scales measuring functionality, pain and clinical assessments (e.g. range of motion) and health-related quality of life.ConclusionsWe identified 13 studies that evaluated the effectiveness/safety of hardware removal in the extremities. The follow up times were short, the patient groups small and the ways of measurement differed. In general, clinical heterogeneity was high. Evidence on selected topics, e.g. syndesmotic screw removal is available nevertheless not sufficient to allow a meaningful assessment of effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Sources of information used by patients prior to elective surgery: a scoping review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Sources of information used by patients prior to elective surgery: a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets