Dataset Information

Defining timeliness in care for patients with lung cancer: protocol for a scoping review.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and lung cancer is the single leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis of lung cancer is the key to better prognosis and longer survival. While there are substantial literature reporting delays in cancer diagnosis, there is a lack of consensus in the definitions and terms used to describe 'delay' in the treatment pathway. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and critically synthesise the operational definitions and terminologies used to describe the timely initiation of care and consequent treatments over the care pathway for patients with lung cancer. This scoping review will also compare how timeliness was operationalised in Western and Asian countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The scoping review will use the methodology described by Arksey and O'Malley and endorsed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO electronic databases will be searched. Grey literature sources and the reference lists of key studies will be used to identify additional relevant studies. The scoping review will include all studies, irrespective of study methodology and quality. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts to identify eligible studies for inclusion. The full texts of identified studies will be further examined and charted using a data extraction form. A narrative synthesis will be performed to assess and categorise available definitions of timeliness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not needed as this scoping review will be reviewing already published articles. The results produced from this review will be submitted to a scientific peer-reviewed journal for publication and will be presented at scientific meetings.

SUBMITTER: Ansar A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7643508 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining timeliness in care for patients with lung cancer: protocol for a scoping review.

Ansar Adnan A Lewis Virginia V McDonald Christine Faye CF Liu Chaojie C Rahman Aziz A

BMJ open 20201104 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and lung cancer is the single leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis of lung cancer is the key to better prognosis and longer survival. While there are substantial literature reporting delays in cancer diagnosis, there is a lack of consensus in the definitions and terms used to describe 'delay' in the treatment pathway. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and critically synthesise the oper ...[more]

PMID: 33148754

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLung cancer has the second-ranked morbidity rate and the first-ranked mortality rate worldwide. With the progression of the cancer condition and the advancement of new treatments, the corresponding medical expenses have risen sharply. Nowadays, financial toxicity has become one of the most common concerns in patients with cancer. However, by far, the full landscape of studies on financial toxicity is unclear in patients with lung cancer. Thus, this scoping review aims to summarise the degree, affecting factors, outcomes and intervention strategies of financial toxicity in patients with lung cancer.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will be developed following the methodology described in the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis on scoping review protocol, which was based on Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, Levac et al's recommendations for applying this framework and Peters et al's enhancements of the framework. From the day of database building to 31 December 2021, 10 English databases will be searched in the 'Abstract' field with three key search terms: "Lung", "Cancer" and "Financial toxicity". The studies' screening and data extraction will be independently performed by two reviewers (MZ and RZ). Any disagreements between the two reviewers (MZ and RZ) will be resolved by consensus, and a third reviewer (BW) will be invited if necessary. The results will be analysed and presented using tables and figures. This scoping review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationAn ethical approval is not required for this scoping review protocol, nor for the scoping review. The results of this scoping review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal or presentation at conferences.RegistrationThis scoping review protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ub45n/?view_only=bb93eb94e1434a0f8196b3b61cffcec2).

Project description:BackgroundData harmonisation is an important intervention to strengthen health systems functioning. It has the potential to enhance the production, accessibility and utilisation of routine health information for clinical and service management decision-making. It is important to understand the range of definitions and concepts of data harmonisation, as well as how its various social and technical components and processes are thought to lead to better health management decision-making. However, there is lack of agreement in the literature, and in practice, on definitions and conceptualisations of data harmonisation, making it difficult for health system decision-makers and researchers to design, implement, evaluate and compare data harmonisation interventions. This scoping review aims to synthesise (1) definitions and conceptualisations of data harmonisation as well as (2) explanations in the literature of the causal relationships between data harmonisation and health management decision-making.MethodsThis review follows recommended methodological stages for scoping studies. We will identify relevant studies (peer-reviewed and grey literature) from 2000 onwards, in English only, and with no methodological restriction, in various electronic databases, such as CINAHL, MEDLINE via PubMed and Global Health. Two reviewers will independently screen records for potential inclusion for the abstract and full-text screening stages. One reviewer will do the data extraction, analysis and synthesis, with built-in reliability checks from the rest of the team. We will use a combination of sampling techniques, including two types of 'purposeful sampling', a methodological approach that is particularly suitable for a scoping review with our objectives. We will provide (a) a numerical synthesis of characteristics of the included studies and (b) a narrative synthesis of definitions and explanations in the literature of the relationship between data harmonisation and health management decision-making.DiscussionWe list potential limitations of this scoping review. To our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to synthesise definitions and conceptualisations of data harmonisation in the literature as well as the underlying explanations in the literature of the causal links between data harmonisation and health management decision-making.

Project description:IntroductionImproved treatment regimens have led to increased survival rates among childhood cancer survivors (CCS), and more than 84% of all children diagnosed with cancer will experience long-term survival or cure. Survivors are susceptible to late effects of cancer treatment often requiring lifelong follow-up care, as many of these conditions can be prevented or mitigated with surveillance. Integrating primary care (PC) and childhood cancer survivorship care can improve follow-up for survivors, however, little integrative research exists. This scoping review aims to: identify and describe existing models of care that integrate PC and childhood cancer survivorship care, examine the effectiveness of these models of care, and characterise the barriers and facilitators for the integration of PC for CCS.Methods and analysisA comprehensive empirical literature search of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) was employed to identify potentially relevant citations on 1 October 2020. The population, independent variables/intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing, setting and study design/other limiters (PICOTSS) framework was used to inform protocol development. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation will be used to report study findings. The search strategy will be completed again prior to publication to ensure recent empirical research is accounted for.Ethics and disseminationThis research is exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Approval from a research ethics board for this study was not required as it does not involve human participants or unpublished secondary data. The findings from this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts, clinical conference presentations, professional networks and digital communications using social media platforms such as Twitter. This study has been registered with Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/92xbg.

Project description:IntroductionA head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis significantly impacts a patient's quality of life (QOL). Palliative care potentially improves their QOL. We will conduct a scoping review to identify existing knowledge about palliative care interventions for patients with HNC.Methods and analysisThis scoping review was designed in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Our eligibility criteria follow the Population, Intervention, Comparison or Control, Outcomes and Study characteristics framework. The population is adult patients with locally advanced, metastatic, unresectable and/or recurrent HNC. We include peer-reviewed journal articles and articles in the press, in English, reporting on palliative care interventions with at least two of the eight National Consensus Project on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care domains; studies with and without comparators will be included. The outcomes are patient QOL (primary) and symptom severity, patients' satisfaction with care, patients' mood, advance care planning and place of death (secondary). We developed a search strategy across ten databases, to be searched from the inception to 11 September 2023: Medline ALL (Medline and EPub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase Classic+Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO all from the OvidSP platform; CINAHL from EBSCOhost, Scopus from Elsevier, Web of Science from Clarivate and Global Index Medicus from WHO. We will extract data using a piloted data form and analyse the data through descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not needed for a scoping review. We will disseminate the findings to healthcare providers and policy-makers by publishing the results in a scientific journal.

Project description:IntroductionTransitions in Care (TiC) are vulnerable periods in care delivery associated with adverse events, increased cost and decreased patient satisfaction. Patients with cancer encounter many transitions during their care journey due to improved survival rates and the complexity of treatment. Collectively, improving TiC is particularly important among patients with cancer. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise and map the existing literature regarding TiC among patients with cancer in order to explore opportunities to improve TiC among patients with cancer.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Review Extension and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The PubMed cancer filter and underlying search strategy will be tailored to each database (Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO) and combined with search terms for TiC. Grey literature and references of included studies will be searched. The search will include studies published from database inception until 9 February 2020. Quantitative and qualitative studies will be included if they describe transitions between any type of healthcare provider or institution among patients with cancer. Descriptive statistics will summarise study characteristics and quantitative data of included studies. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationOur objective is to synthesise and map the existing evidence; therefore, ethical approval is not required. Evidence gaps around TiC will inform a programme of research aimed to improve high-risk transitions among patients with cancer. The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and widely presented at academic conferences. More importantly, decision makers and patients will be provided a summary of the findings, along with data from a companion study, to prioritise TiC in need of interventions to improve continuity of care for patients with cancer.

Project description:BackgroundDisparities in the stage at diagnosis of endometrial cancer (EC) account for a significant proportion of the disparities in morbidity and mortality experienced by vulnerable groups in the USA. Evidence suggests that disparities in timeliness of care and treatment play a significant role in stage at diagnosis. Despite an increase in literature on EC disparities, the issue remains largely unchanged. The objectives of this review will be to synthesize the evidence to identify important remaining research questions and inform future interventions to reduce the disparity in stage at diagnosis of EC in the USA.MethodsThis scoping review protocol will use the five-step framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. A literature search will be conducted from January 2000 onwards in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Studies on delays in care of EC will be included if they were published in English and reported findings for the US population. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The study methodological quality and bias will be appraised using appropriate tools. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods. The literature search, data extraction, and evidence synthesis will be informed by the Pathway to Treatment Model, which divides time to cancer care initiation into appraisal, help-seeking, diagnostic, and pre-treatment intervals. Results will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement.DiscussionEC disparities research is currently benefitting form a growing expectation that studies have a real impact on disparities. Patient, healthcare, and disease factors impact the amount of time patients spend in different intervals of the Pathway to Treatment Model, so research and interventions aimed at reducing disparities in EC survival should be designed with cognizance to how these factors impact their target population. Reviews on disparities in stage at diagnosis of EC exist but do not provide a comprehensive picture of the pathway to treatment. This review will seek to provide an expanded bedrock of evidence for future studies to build on as they aim to more actively reduce EC disparities.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework ( osf.io/v2zxy ).

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.

Project description:BackgroundHealth practitioners and researchers must be able to measure and assess maternal care quality in facilities to monitor, intervene, and reduce global maternal mortality rates. On the global scale, there is a general lack of consensus on how maternal care quality is defined, conceptualized, and measured. Much of the literature addressing this problem has focused primarily on defining, conceptualizing, and measuring clinical indicators of maternal care quality. Less attention has been given in this regard to perceived maternal care quality among women which is known to influence care utilization and adherence. Therefore, there is a need to map the literature focused on defining, conceptualizing, and measuring perceived maternal care quality across low-, middle-, and high-income country contexts.MethodsThis scoping review protocol will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. A comprehensive search strategy will be used to search for articles published from inception to 2020 in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and WHO Global Index Medicus. Gray literature will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract, then by full-text based on pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will arbitrate any discrepancies. This protocol outlines a four-step analytic approach that includes numerical, graphical, tabular, and narrative summaries to provide a comprehensive description of the body of literature.DiscussionThe findings from this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on perceived maternal care quality. The findings are expected to inform future work on building consensus around the definition and conceptualization of perceived maternal care quality, and lay the groundwork for future research aimed at developing measures of perceived maternal care quality that can be applied across country contexts. Consequently, this review may aid in facilitating coordinated efforts to measure and improve maternal care quality across diverse country contexts (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income country contexts).Review registrationThis scoping review has been registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/k8nqh).

Dataset Information

Defining timeliness in care for patients with lung cancer: protocol for a scoping review.

Publications

Defining timeliness in care for patients with lung cancer: protocol for a scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets