Dataset Information

Risks and Benefits of Web-Based Patient Narratives: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient narratives are illustrative, individual accounts of patients' experiences with certain health conditions. Web-based patient narratives have become widely available on the internet and in social media, as part of electronically available patient decision aids or Web-based databases. In recent years, the role of patient narratives as a source of information, insight, and support for both health care users and providers has increasingly been emphasized. Although the potential impact of patient stories has high immediate plausibility, it is of interest to know if this impact can be captured in quantitative studies.

Objective

This review aimed to evaluate whether research-generated Web-based patient narratives have quantifiable risks or benefits for (potential) patients, relatives, or health care professionals.

Methods

We searched the following databases from August 2017 to March 2019: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed and assessed for the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Papers were included if they studied the following: (1) (potential) patients, relatives, or health care professionals; (2) the effects of Web-based patient narratives that were generated scientifically (eg, through qualitative research methods); and (3) were quantitative studies. Furthermore, 2 authors independently performed an assessment of the quality of the included studies using a validated checklist.

Results

Of 4226 documents, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies investigated 10 different sources of Web-based patient narratives. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 2458. The mean score of the quality assessment was 82.6 (range 61-100). Effects regarding five different purposes were identified as follows: provide information, engage, model behavior, persuade, and comfort. We found positive effects in every category and negative effects in one category (persuade). Several of the reported effects are rather small or were identified under specific experimental conditions.

Conclusions

Patient narratives seem to be a promising means to support users in improving their understanding of certain health conditions and possibly to provide emotional support and have an impact on behavioral changes. There is limited evidence for beneficial effects on some outcomes. However, narratives are characterized by considerable heterogeneity and the investigated outcomes are hardly comparable with each other, which makes the overall judgment difficult. As there are numerous possible measures and purposes of narratives, quantifying the impact of Web-based patient narratives remains a challenge. Future research is needed to define the optimal standards for quantitative approaches to narrative-based interventions.

SUBMITTER: Drewniak D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7146251 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risks and Benefits of Web-Based Patient Narratives: Systematic Review.

Drewniak Daniel D Glässel Andrea A Hodel Martina M Biller-Andorno Nikola N

Journal of medical Internet research 20200326 3

<h4>Background</h4>Patient narratives are illustrative, individual accounts of patients' experiences with certain health conditions. Web-based patient narratives have become widely available on the internet and in social media, as part of electronically available patient decision aids or Web-based databases. In recent years, the role of patient narratives as a source of information, insight, and support for both health care users and providers has increasingly been emphasized. Although the poten ...[more]

PMID: 32213468

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThousands of web searches are performed related to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), given its palliative role in the treatment of liver cancer.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the reliability, quality, completeness, readability, understandability, and actionability of websites that provide information on TACE for patients.MethodsThe five most popular keywords pertaining to TACE were searched on Google, Yahoo, and Bing. General website characteristics and the presence of Health On the Net Foundation code certification were documented. Website assessment was performed using the following scores: DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. A novel TACE content score was generated to evaluate website completeness.ResultsThe search yielded 3750 websites. In total, 81 website entities belonging to 78 website domains met the inclusion criteria. A medical disclaimer was not provided on 28% (22/78) of website domains. Health On the Net code certification was present on 12% (9/78) of website domains. Authorship was absent on 88% (71/81) of websites, and sources were absent on 83% (67/81) of websites. The date of publication or of the last update was not listed on 58% (47/81) of websites. The median DISCERN score was 47.0 (IQR 40.5-54.0). The median TACE content score was 35 (IQR 27-43). The median readability grade level was in the 11th grade. Overall, 61% (49/81) and 16% (13/81) of websites were deemed understandable and actionable, respectively. Not-for-profit websites fared significantly better on the Journal of the American Medical Association, DISCERN, and TACE content scores.ConclusionsThe content referring to TACE that is currently available on the web is unreliable, incomplete, difficult to read, understandable but not actionable, and characterized by low overall quality. Websites need to revise their content to optimally educate consumers and support shared decision-making.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020202747; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020202747.

Project description:BackgroundIt has been reported that caseload midwifery, which implies continuity of midwifery care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period, improves the outcomes for the mother and child. The aim of this study was to review benefits and risks of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care comparable to the Swedish setting where the same midwife usually provides antenatal care and the checkup postnatally, but does not assist during birth and the first week postpartum.MethodsMedline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library were searched (Nov 4th, 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were assessed and pooled risk ratios calculated when possible, using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.ResultsIn all, 7,594 patients in eight RCTs were included, whereof five RCTs without major risk of bias, including 5,583 patients, formed the basis for the conclusions. There was moderate certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of Apgar ≤ 7 at 5 min, instrumental birth, and preterm birth. There was low certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal intensive care, perineal tear, bleeding, and acute caesarean section. Caseload midwifery may reduce the overall risk of caesarean section. Regarding breastfeeding after hospital discharge, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, health-related quality of life, postpartum depression, health care experience/satisfaction and confidence, available studies did not allow conclusions (very low certainty of evidence). For severe child morbidity and Apgar ≤ 4 at 5 min, there was no literature available.ConclusionsWhen caseload midwifery was compared with models of care that resembles the Swedish one, little or no difference was found for several critical and important child and maternal outcomes with low-moderate certainty of evidence, but the risk of caesarean section may be reduced. For several outcomes, including critical and important ones, studies were lacking, or the certainty of evidence was very low. RCTs in relevant settings are therefore required.

Project description:Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticancer drugs without active comparators in patients who have exhausted standard of care treatment options are debated. We aimed to quantify the safety and the efficacy of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients who have exhausted standard of care treatments from RCTs without active comparators.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to preferred reporting Items for systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (CRD42021243968). A systematic literature search of English language publications from January 1, 2000, to January 7, 2021, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible trials included all RCTs evaluating anticancer drugs in adult patients with advanced solid tumors with a control arm without any anticancer drug consisting of best supportive care with or without a placebo. RCTs performed in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant or maintenance settings were excluded, as were clinical trials evaluating anticancer drugs in combination with radiotherapy. Two authors (C.M.B. and E.C.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion. Data from published reports were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlations between severe toxicity and efficacy was assessed using R2 measures.Findings: Of 3551 studies screened, 128 eligible trials were found involving 47,432 patients. The HRs for PFS and OS were 0·58 [95%CI: 0·53-0·63] and 0·82 [95%CI: 0·78-0·85]. The absolute benefits however were limited with PFS and OS gains of 2·1 and 0·5 months. The absolute excesses in all grade, severe grade III, IV and V (death) adverse events between the two arms were +13·9%, 10·2%, and +0·5%. A weak correlation was measured between the excess of severe toxicity and efficacy (all R² < 0·2).Interpretation: Anticancer drugs evaluated in RCTs against no active treatment benefited trial participants. Severe toxicity did not significantly correlate with efficacy.FundingNone.

Dataset Information

Risks and Benefits of Web-Based Patient Narratives: Systematic Review.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Risks and Benefits of Web-Based Patient Narratives: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets