Dataset Information

Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) With a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cancer rehabilitation research has accelerated over the last decade. However, closer examination of the published literature reveals that the majority of this work has focused on psychological interventions and cognitive and behavioral therapies. Recent initiatives have aggregated expert consensus around research priorities, highlighting a dearth in research regarding measurement of and interventions for physical function. Increasingly loud calls for the need to address the myriad of physical functional impairments that develop in people living with and beyond cancer have been published in the literature. A detailed survey of the landscape of published research has not been reported to our knowledge.

Purpose

This scoping review systematically identified literature published between 2008 and 2018 related to the screening, assessment, and interventions associated with physical function in people living with and beyond cancer.

Data sources

PubMed and CINAHL were searched up to September 2018.

Study selection

Study selection included articles of all levels of evidence on any disease stage and population. A total of 11,483 articles were screened for eligibility, 2507 full-text articles were reviewed, and 1055 articles were selected for final inclusion and extraction.

Data extraction

Seven reviewers recorded type of cancer, disease stage, age of participants, phase of treatment, time since diagnosis, application to physical function, study design, impairments related to physical function, and measurement instruments used.

Data synthesis

Approximately one-third of the articles included patients with various cancer diagnoses (30.3%), whereas the rest focused on a single cancer, most commonly breast (24.8%). Most articles (77%) measured physical function following the completion of active cancer treatment with 64% representing the assessment domain. The most commonly used measures of physical function were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Health Survey Questionnaire (29%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (21.5%).

Limitations

Studies not written in English, study protocols, conference abstracts, and unpublished data were excluded.

Conclusions

This review elucidated significant inconsistencies in the literature regarding language used to define physical function, measurement tools used to characterize function, and the use of those tools across the cancer treatment and survivorship trajectory. The findings suggested that physical function in cancer research is predominantly measured using general health-related quality-of-life tools rather than more precise functional assessment tools. Interdisciplinary and clinician-researcher collaborative efforts should be directed toward a unified definition and assessment of physical function.

SUBMITTER: Harrington SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204886 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study Design: Scoping review Objective: To study the design, clinical setting and outcome measures used in spinal cord injury rehabilitation publications. Methods: A literature search on PubMed and Medline was conducted focusing on articles published between 1990-2016 and using "traumatic SCI", "functional outcomes", "rehabilitation", "work" and "return to work" as outcomes. Studies were categorized based on design (intervention, including RCTs vs. non-intervention studies), settings (inpatient vs. outpatient vs. transition), and outcome measures used (impairment vs. function vs. participation/integration vs. quality of life vs. symptoms). Work-related studies were categorized independently. Results: Five hundred forty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 234 were interventional studies, including 23 RCTs. Studies were evenly divided among inpatient, outpatient and transition settings. Of the 234 interventional studies, 143 used functional evaluations. Sixty-one different functional instruments were used, with a predominant use of the Functional Independence Measure (61 times) and an additional use of SCI-specific measures, i.e. Spinal Cord Independence Measure and Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique (13 times each). Fifty-one studies measured mobility, while only three measured hand functions. The work-related sub-analysis revealed 32 intervention studies (no RCTs), of which 15 used functional evaluations and only three focused on tetraplegia. Conclusion: Our study revealed a paucity of intervention trials and RCTs, indicating a dearth of knowledge that would be needed to establish evidence-based practice guidelines. This is particularly true for tetraplegia. While standard measures of function were frequently used, providing valuable data, there is no consensus about what exact outcome measure to use. Using newer measurement techniques, for instance based on the application of item response theory, should be considered to enhance uniformity.

Project description:Background:Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients' functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how they were reported and measured. Methods:We searched five databases from inception to December 2016 for prospective studies evaluating adult ICU PR interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. We assessed completeness of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, as appropriate. For planned PR interventions, we evaluated reporting with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and assessed intervention and control groups separately. We calculated completeness of reporting scores for each study; scores represented the proportion of reported items. We compared reporting between groups using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections and t tests, ??=?0.05. Results:We screened 61,774 unique citations, reviewed 1429 full-text publications, and included 117: 39 randomized trials, 30 case series, 9 two-group comparison, 14 before-after, and 25 cohort. Interventions included neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (14.5%), passive/active exercises (15.4%), cycling (6.8%), progressive mobility (32.5%), and multicomponent (29.9%). The median (first,third quartiles) study reporting score was 75.9% (62.5, 86.7) with no significant differences between reporting guidelines. Of 87 planned intervention studies, the median CERT score was 55.6%(44.7,75.0); cycling had the highest (85.0%(62.2,93.8)), and NMES and multicomponent the lowest (50.0% (39.5, 70.3) and 50.0% (41.5, 58.8), respectively) scores. Authors reported intervention groups better than controls (p?<?0.001). Conclusions:We identified important reporting deficiencies in ICU PR interventions, limiting clinical implementation and future trial development.

Project description:BackgroundDue to growing pressure on the health care system, a shift in rehabilitation to home settings is essential. However, efficient support for home-based rehabilitation is lacking. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these challenges and has affected individuals and health care professionals during rehabilitation. Digital rehabilitation (DR) could support home-based rehabilitation. To develop and implement DR solutions that meet clients' needs and ease the growing pressure on the health care system, it is necessary to provide an overview of existing, relevant, and future solutions shaping the constantly evolving market of technologies for home-based DR.ObjectiveIn this scoping review, we aimed to identify digital technologies for home-based DR, predict new or emerging DR trends, and report on the influences of the COVID-19 pandemic on DR.MethodsThe scoping review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley, with improvements made by Levac et al. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. The search spanned January 2015 to January 2022. A bibliometric analysis was performed to provide an overview of the included references, and a co-occurrence analysis identified the technologies for home-based DR. A full-text analysis of all included reviews filtered the trends for home-based DR. A gray literature search supplemented the results of the review analysis and revealed the influences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of DR.ResultsA total of 2437 records were included in the bibliometric analysis and 95 in the full-text analysis, and 40 records were included as a result of the gray literature search. Sensors, robotic devices, gamification, virtual and augmented reality, and digital and mobile apps are already used in home-based DR; however, artificial intelligence and machine learning, exoskeletons, and digital and mobile apps represent new and emerging trends. Advantages and disadvantages were displayed for all technologies. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased use of digital technologies as remote approaches but has not led to the development of new technologies.ConclusionsMultiple tools are available and implemented for home-based DR; however, some technologies face limitations in the application of home-based rehabilitation. However, artificial intelligence and machine learning could be instrumental in redesigning rehabilitation and addressing future challenges of the health care system, and the rehabilitation sector in particular. The results show the need for feasible and effective approaches to implement DR that meet clients' needs and adhere to framework conditions, regardless of exceptional situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Breast cancer still is a topic. This overview of the literature aimed to update the current knowledge on quality of life in breast cancer patients. METHODS:A review of literature in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Google Scholar were carried out to identify review papers on health-related quality of life in breast cancer during the 2008 to 2018. All publications were screened using the PRISMA guideline. The methodological quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR. The findings were summarized and tabulated accordingly. RESULTS:Within over a decade, a total of 974 review papers were identified which according to the study selection criteria finally we have evaluated 82 reviews. Of these about 85% had a reasonable methodological quality. The findings were mainly summarized on several headings including instruments used to measure quality of life, treatment, supportive care, psychological distress, and symptoms. Questionnaires had a good performance to quantify quality of life in breast cancer patients. Most reviews were focused on the impact of treatment including endocrine therapy as well as integrating complementary and alternative medicine into the current practice. According to the reviews, yoga was the most recommended exercise to improve quality of life in breast cancer patients. CONCLUSION:Overall, the findings from this overview indicated that quality of life in breast cancer patients enhanced during the last decade. Several simple but effective interventions such as physical activity and psychosocial interventions proved to be effective in improving quality of life in this population. However, management of symptoms such as pain, and lymphedema, issues related to worry, sexual function especially for young patients, and the future outlooks all are among topics that deserve further consideration. Also, this overview indicated that methodological issues in measuring quality of life in breast cancer patients improved greatly, but still there is a long way to go to understand what really matter to patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Rehabilitation interventions for older adults are complex as they involve a number of interacting components, have multiple outcomes of interest and are influenced by a number of contextual factors. The importance of rigorous intervention development prior to formal evaluation has been acknowledged and a number of frameworks have been developed. This review explored which frameworks have been used to guide the development of rehabilitation interventions for older adults. DESIGN:Systematic scoping review. SETTING:Studies were not limited for inclusion based on setting. PARTICIPANTS:Studies were included that featured older adults (>65 years of age). INTERVENTIONS:Studies were included that reported the development of a rehabilitation intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Data were extracted on study population, setting, type of intervention developed and frameworks used. The primary outcome of interest was the type of intervention development framework. RESULTS:Thirty-five studies were included. There was a range of underlying medical conditions including mild cognitive impairment and dementia (n=5), cardiac (n=4), stroke (n=3), falls (n=3), hip fracture (n=2), diabetes (n=2), breast cancer (n=1), Parkinson's disease (n=1), depression (n=1), chronic health problems (n=1), osteoarthritis (n=1), leg ulcer (n=1), neck pain (n=1) and foot problems (n=1). The intervention types being developed included multicomponent, support based, cognitive, physical activities, nursing led, falls prevention and occupational therapy led. Twelve studies (34%) did not report using a framework. Five frameworks were reported with the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions being the most frequently cited (77%, n=17). CONCLUSION:At present, the MRC framework is the most popular for developing rehabilitation interventions for older adults. Many studies do not report using a framework. Further, specific guidance to assist this complex field of rehabilitation research is required.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize the nature and extent of research on rehabilitation care provision to patients with COVID-19. Specifically, we aimed to (1) describe the impact of COVID on patients and associated rehabilitation needs, (2) outline the adaptations and preparations required to enable the provision of COVID rehabilitation, (3) describe the types of rehabilitation services and treatments provided to COVID patients, and (4) identify barriers and facilitators to delivering COVID rehabilitation.Literature surveyWe searched Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, and CINAHL on June 26, 2020 using key words such as "rehabilitation," "physical medicine," "allied health professionals," and variations of "COVID." The search was updated on October 13, 2020. We included articles published in English and that focused on some aspect of COVID rehabilitation for adults. We excluded articles focused on pediatric populations and those not focused (or minimally focused) on rehabilitation for COVID patients.MethodologyData were charted based on article type (ie, primary data, secondary data, guidelines). Key information extracted included (1) COVID sequelae; (2) rehabilitation adaptations; (3) structure, function, and content of rehabilitation services/programs; (4) facilitators and/or barriers to providing COVID rehabilitation; and (5) recommendations for COVID rehabilitation programming. Data were synthesized narratively.SynthesisIn total, 128 articles were included in the review that reported primary data (n = 33), secondary data (n = 82), and clinical practice/patient self-management guidelines (n = 13). Evidence begins to suggest that rehabilitation is necessary and valuable for addressing COVID-related declines in health, function, and well-being. Most articles recommended that an individualized rehabilitation program be provided across the continuum of care by an interdisciplinary team of professionals and that the nature and extent of rehabilitation be informed by the care setting and COVID severity. Most issues that challenged COVID rehabilitation delivery were directly addressed by the facilitators and adaptations identified.ConclusionsFuture recommendations include a greater emphasis on the psychosocial aspects of COVID rehabilitation, inclusion of families in rehabilitation planning, and the use of qualitative approaches to complement clinical data.