Dataset Information

Effects of psychosocial support interventions on survival in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings: A meta-analysis of 106 randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospitals, clinics, and health organizations have provided psychosocial support interventions for medical patients to supplement curative care. Prior reviews of interventions augmenting psychosocial support in medical settings have reported mixed outcomes. This meta-analysis addresses the questions of how effective are psychosocial support interventions in improving patient survival and which potential moderating features are associated with greater effectiveness.

Methods and findings

We evaluated randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial support interventions in inpatient and outpatient healthcare settings reporting survival data, including studies reporting disease-related or all-cause mortality. Literature searches included studies reported January 1980 through October 2020 accessed from Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Alt HealthWatch, PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, and Google Scholar databases. At least 2 reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality, with at least 2 independent reviewers also extracting data and assessing study quality. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) data were analyzed separately using random effects weighted models. Of 42,054 studies searched, 106 RCTs including 40,280 patients met inclusion criteria. Patient average age was 57.2 years, with 52% females and 48% males; 42% had cardiovascular disease (CVD), 36% had cancer, and 22% had other conditions. Across 87 RCTs reporting data for discrete time periods, the average was OR = 1.20 (95% CI = 1.09 to 1.31, p < 0.001), indicating a 20% increased likelihood of survival among patients receiving psychosocial support compared to control groups receiving standard medical care. Among those studies, psychosocial interventions explicitly promoting health behaviors yielded improved likelihood of survival, whereas interventions without that primary focus did not. Across 22 RCTs reporting survival time, the average was HR = 1.29 (95% CI = 1.12 to 1.49, p < 0.001), indicating a 29% increased probability of survival over time among intervention recipients compared to controls. Among those studies, meta-regressions identified 3 moderating variables: control group type, patient disease severity, and risk of research bias. Studies in which control groups received health information/classes in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) averaged weaker effects than those in which control groups received only TAU. Studies with patients having relatively greater disease severity tended to yield smaller gains in survival time relative to control groups. In one of 3 analyses, studies with higher risk of research bias tended to report better outcomes. The main limitation of the data is that interventions very rarely blinded personnel and participants to study arm, such that expectations for improvement were not controlled.

Conclusions

In this meta-analysis, OR data indicated that psychosocial behavioral support interventions promoting patient motivation/coping to engage in health behaviors improved patient survival, but interventions focusing primarily on patients' social or emotional outcomes did not prolong life. HR data indicated that psychosocial interventions, predominantly focused on social or emotional outcomes, improved survival but yielded similar effects to health information/classes and were less effective among patients with apparently greater disease severity. Risk of research bias remains a plausible threat to data interpretation.

SUBMITTER: Smith TB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antibiotic exposure can lead to unintended outcomes, including drug-drug interactions, adverse drug events, and healthcare-associated infections like Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Improving antibiotic use is critical to reduce an individual's CDI risk. Antibiotic stewardship initiatives can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (e.g., unnecessary antibiotic prescribing, inappropriate antibiotic selection), impacting both hospital (healthcare)-onset (HO)-CDI and community-associated (CA)-CDI. Previous computational and mathematical modeling studies have demonstrated a reduction in CDI incidence associated with antibiotic stewardship initiatives in hospital settings. Although the impact of antibiotic stewardship initiatives in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), including nursing homes, and in outpatient settings have been documented, the effects of specific interventions on CDI incidence are not well understood. We examined the relative effectiveness of antibiotic stewardship interventions on CDI incidence using a geospatially explicit agent-based model of a regional healthcare network in North Carolina. We simulated reductions in unnecessary antibiotic prescribing and inappropriate antibiotic selection with intervention scenarios at individual and network healthcare facilities, including short-term acute care hospitals (STACHs), nursing homes, and outpatient locations. Modeled antibiotic prescription rates were calculated using patient-level data on antibiotic length of therapy for the 10 modeled network STACHs. By simulating a 30% reduction in antibiotics prescribed across all inpatient and outpatient locations, we found the greatest reductions on network CDI incidence among tested scenarios, namely a 17% decrease in HO-CDI incidence and 7% decrease in CA-CDI. Among intervention scenarios of reducing inappropriate antibiotic selection, we found a greater impact on network CDI incidence when modeling this reduction in nursing homes alone compared to the same intervention in STACHs alone. These results support the potential importance of LTCF and outpatient antibiotic stewardship efforts on network CDI burden and add to the evidence that a coordinated approach to antibiotic stewardship across multiple facilities, including inpatient and outpatient settings, within a regional healthcare network could be an effective strategy to reduce network CDI burden.

Project description:BackgroundPenicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in the US. Despite evidence demonstrating that up to 90% of labels are incorrect, scalable interventions are not well established. As part of a larger mixed methods investigation, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the barriers to implementing a risk-based penicillin de-labeling protocol within a single site Veteran's hospital.MethodsWe conducted individual and group interviews with multidisciplinary inpatient and outpatient healthcare teams. The interview guides were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore workflows and contextual factors influencing identification and evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy. Three researchers iteratively developed the codebook based on TDF domains and coded the data using thematic analysis.ResultsWe interviewed 20 clinicians. Participants included three hospitalists, five inpatient pharmacists, one infectious disease physician, two anti-microbial stewardship pharmacists, four primary care providers, two outpatient pharmacists, two resident physicians, and a nurse case manager for the allergy service. The factors that contributed to barriers to penicillin allergy evaluation and de-labeling were classified under six TDF domains; knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, professional role and identity, and environmental context and resources. Participants from all groups acknowledged the importance of penicillin de-labeling. However, they lacked confidence in their skills to perform the necessary evaluations, such as test dose challenges. The fear of inducing an allergic reaction and adding further complexity to patient care exacerbated their reluctance to de-label patients. The lack of ownership of de-labeling initiative was another significant obstacle in establishing consistent clinical workflows. Additionally, heavy workloads, competing priorities, and ease of access to alternative antibiotics prevented the prioritization of tasks related to de-labeling. Space limitations and nursing staff shortages added to challenges in outpatient settings.ConclusionOur findings demonstrated that barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling fall under multiple behavioral domains. Better role clarification, opportunities to develop necessary skills, and dedicated resources are needed to overcome these barriers. Future interventions will need to employ a systemic approach that addresses each of the behavioral domains influencing penicillin allergy de-labeling with stakeholder engagement of the inpatient and outpatient health care teams.

Project description:Background:In democracies, voting is an important action through which citizens engage in the political process. Although elections are only one aspect of political engagement, voting sends a signal of support or dissent for policies that ultimately shape the social determinants of health. Social determinants subsequently influence who votes and who does not. Our objective is to examine the existing research on voting and health and on interventions to increase voter participation through healthcare organizations. Methods:We conducted a scoping review to examine the existing research on voting, health, and interventions to increase voter participation through healthcare organizations. We carried out a search of the indexed, peer-reviewed literature using Ovid MEDLINE (1946-present), PsychINFO (1806-present), Ebsco CINAHL, Embase (1947-present), Web of Science, ProQuest Sociological Abstracts, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. We limited our search to articles published in English. Titles and abstracts were reviewed, followed by a full-text review of eligible articles and data extraction. Articles were required to focus on the connection between voting and health, or report on interventions that occurred within healthcare organizations that aimed to improve voter engagement. Results:Our search identified 2041 citations, of which 40 articles met our inclusion criteria. Selected articles dated from 1991-2018 and were conducted primarily in Europe, the USA, and Canada. We identified four interrelated areas explored in the literature: (1) there is a consistency in the association between voting and health; (2) differences in voter participation are associated with health conditions; (3) gaps in voter participation may be associated with electoral outcomes; and (4) interventions in healthcare organizations can increase voter participation. Conclusion:Voting and health are associated, namely people with worse health tend to be less likely to engage in voting. Differences in voter participation due to social, economic, and health inequities have been shown to have large effects on electoral outcomes. Research gaps were identified in the following areas: long-term effects of voting on health, the effects of other forms of democratic engagement on health, and the broader impact that health providers and organizations can have on voting through interventions in their communities.