An integrative review of the use of the concept of reassurance in clinical practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
To synthesize evidence on the concept of reassurance in nursing practice.Design
Integrative review.Review method
PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from their inception to the 30 May 2020. The search results were screened. We assessed the quality of primary studies using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Included studies were analysed using narrative synthesis. The review protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO-CRD42020186962).Results
Thirty-two papers out of the 2,771 search results met our inclusion criteria. The synthesis of evidence generated three intricate themes, namely "antecedents of reassurance," "defining attributes of reassurance" and "outcomes of reassurance." Emotional distress was the main antecedent of reassurance. The three sub-themes identified under defining attributes of reassurance include self-awareness, emotional connectedness and verbal and non-verbal techniques. Ultimately, reposing the confidence of patients and their families in healthcare professionals and the care delivery process to enable them to overcome their challenges constitutes the outcomes of reassurance.
SUBMITTER: Akyirem S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8994970 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An integrative review of the use of the concept of reassurance in clinical practice.
Akyirem Samuel S Salifu Yakubu Y Bayuo Jonathan J Duodu Precious Adade PA Bossman Irene Fosuhemaa IF Abboah-Offei Mary M
Nursing open 20220311 3
<h4>Aim</h4>To synthesize evidence on the concept of reassurance in nursing practice.<h4>Design</h4>Integrative review.<h4>Review method</h4>PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from their inception to the 30 May 2020. The search results were screened. We assessed the quality of primary studies using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Included studies were analysed using narrative synthesis. The review protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO-CRD42020186962).<h4>Results</h4>Thirty- ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among individuals with cancer, but many choose not to discuss CAM with health-care providers (HCPs). Moreover, there is variability in the provision of evidence-informed decision making about CAM use. A clinical practice guideline was developed to standardize how oncology HCPs address CAM use as well as to inform how individuals with cancer can be supported in making evidence-informed decisions about CAM. An integrative review of the literature, from inception to December 31, 2018, was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and AMED databases. Eligible articles included oncology HCPs' practice related to discussing, assessing, documenting, providing decision support, or offering information about CAM. Two authors independently searched the literature, and selected articles were summarized. Recommendations for clinical practice were formulated from the appraised evidence and clinical experiences of the research team. An expert panel reviewed the guideline for usability and appropriateness and recommendations were finalized. The majority of the 30 studies eligible for inclusion were either observational or qualitative, with only 3 being reviews and 3 being experimental. From the literature, 7 practice recommendations were formulated for oncology HCPs regarding how to address CAM use by individuals with cancer, including communicating, assessing, educating, decision coaching, documenting, active monitoring, and adverse event reporting. It is imperative for safe and comprehensive care that oncology HCPs address CAM use as part of standard practice. This clinical practice guideline offers directions on how to support evidence-informed decision making about CAM among individuals with cancer.
| S-EPMC8755493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims and objectivesTo synthesise international research that relates to midwives' use of best available evidence in practice settings and identify key issues relating to the translation of latest evidence into everyday maternity care.BackgroundMidwifery is a research-informed profession. However, a gap persists in the translation of best available evidence into practice settings, compromising gold standard maternity care and delaying the translation of new knowledge into everyday practice.DesignA five-step integrative review approach, based on a series of articles published by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for conducting systematic reviews, was used to facilitate development of a search strategy, selection criteria and quality appraisal process, and the extraction and synthesis of data to inform an integrative review.MethodsThe databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Implementation Science Journal and Scopus were searched for relevant articles. The screening and quality appraisal process complied with the PRISMA 2009 checklist. Narrative analysis was used to develop sub-categories and dimensions from the data, which were then synthesised to form two major categories that together answer the review question.ResultsThe six articles reviewed report on midwives' use of best available evidence in Australia, the UK and Asia. Two major categories emerged that confirm that although midwifery values evidence-based practice (EBP), evidence-informed maternity care is not always employed in clinical settings. Additionally, closure of the evidence-to-practice gap in maternity care requires a multidimensional approach.ConclusionCollaborative partnerships between midwives and researchers are necessary to initiate strategies that support midwives' efforts to facilitate the timely movement of best available evidence into practice.Relevance to clinical practiceUnderstanding midwives' use of best available evidence in practice will direct future efforts towards the development of mechanisms that facilitate the timely uptake of latest evidence by all maternity care providers working in clinical settings.
| S-EPMC7328778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based practice in nursing is challenging and relies on the sources of information used by nurses to inform clinical practice. An integrative review from 2008 revealed that nurses more frequently relied on information from colleagues than information from high-level sources such as systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.AimsTo describe the information sources used by registered nurses to inform their clinical practice.MethodsAn integrative review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, based on empirical research studies published from January 2007 until June 2021. The included studies were appraised, following which the identified sources of information from quantitative studies were compiled and ranked. Finally, the qualitative text data were summarized into categories.ResultsFifty-two studies from various countries were included. The majority of studies employed a quantitative design and used original instruments. Peers were ranked as the number one source of information to inform nurses' clinical practice. However, computers and reference materials are now ranked among the top four most used information sources.Linking evidence to actionImprovement in computer and information searching skills, as well as the availability of computerized decision support tools, may contribute to nurses' frequent use of digital sources and reference material to inform clinical practice. This review shows that nurses' most frequently reported peer nurses as their source of information in clinical practice. Information sources such as computers and reference materials were ranked higher, and information from patients was ranked lower than in the 2008 review. Developing and standardizing instruments and ensuring high-quality study design is critical for further research on nurses' sources of information for clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9790517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany healthcare professionals use smartphones and tablets to inform patient care. Contemporary research suggests that handheld computers may support aspects of clinical diagnosis and management. This systematic review was designed to synthesise high quality evidence to answer the question; Does healthcare professionals' use of handheld computers improve their access to information and support clinical decision making at the point of care?MethodsA detailed search was conducted using Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science and Social Science Citation Indices since 2001. Interventions promoting healthcare professionals seeking information or making clinical decisions using handheld computers were included. Classroom learning and the use of laptop computers were excluded. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and extracted data. High levels of data heterogeneity negated statistical synthesis. Instead, evidence for effectiveness was summarised narratively, according to each study's aim for assessing the impact of handheld computer use.ResultsWe included seven randomised trials investigating medical or nursing staffs' use of Personal Digital Assistants. Effectiveness was demonstrated across three distinct functions that emerged from the data: accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to guidelines and diagnostic decision making. When healthcare professionals used handheld computers to access clinical information, their knowledge improved significantly more than peers who used paper resources. When clinical guideline recommendations were presented on handheld computers, clinicians made significantly safer prescribing decisions and adhered more closely to recommendations than peers using paper resources. Finally, healthcare professionals made significantly more appropriate diagnostic decisions using clinical decision making tools on handheld computers compared to colleagues who did not have access to these tools. For these clinical decisions, the numbers need to test/screen were all less than 11.ConclusionHealthcare professionals' use of handheld computers may improve their information seeking, adherence to guidelines and clinical decision making. Handheld computers can provide real time access to and analysis of clinical information. The integration of clinical decision support systems within handheld computers offers clinicians the highest level of synthesised evidence at the point of care. Future research is needed to replicate these early results and to identify beneficial clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC4099138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Precision health calls for collecting and analyzing large amounts of data to capture an individual's unique behavior, lifestyle, genetics, and environmental context. The diffusion of digital tools has led to a significant growth of patient generated health data (PGHD), defined as health-related data created, gathered or inferred by or from patients and for which the patient controls data collection and data sharing. PURPOSE:We assessed the current evidence of the impact of PGHD use in clinical practice and provide recommendations for the formal integration of PGHD in clinical care. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Ovid, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus up to May 2018. Inclusion criteria were applied and four reviewers screened titles and abstracts and consequently full articles. FINDINGS:Our systematic literature review identified 21 studies that examined the use of PGHD in clinical settings. Integration of PGHD into electronic records was extremely limited, and decision support capabilities were for the most part basic. DISCUSSION:PGHD and other types of patient-reported data will be part of the health care system narrative and we must continue efforts to understand its impact on health outcomes, costs, and patient satisfaction. Nursing scientists need to lead the process of defining the role of PGHD in the era of precision health.
| S-EPMC6697140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Patients with breast cancer commonly use complementary and integrative therapies as supportive care during cancer treatment and to manage treatment-related side effects. However, evidence supporting the use of such therapies in the oncology setting is limited. This report provides updated clinical practice guidelines from the Society for Integrative Oncology on the use of integrative therapies for specific clinical indications during and after breast cancer treatment, including anxiety/stress, depression/mood disorders, fatigue, quality of life/physical functioning, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, lymphedema, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, pain, and sleep disturbance. Clinical practice guidelines are based on a systematic literature review from 1990 through 2015. Music therapy, meditation, stress management, and yoga are recommended for anxiety/stress reduction. Meditation, relaxation, yoga, massage, and music therapy are recommended for depression/mood disorders. Meditation and yoga are recommended to improve quality of life. Acupressure and acupuncture are recommended for reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Acetyl-L-carnitine is not recommended to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy due to a possibility of harm. No strong evidence supports the use of ingested dietary supplements to manage breast cancer treatment-related side effects. In summary, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the use of integrative therapies, especially mind-body therapies, as effective supportive care strategies during breast cancer treatment. Many integrative practices, however, remain understudied, with insufficient evidence to be definitively recommended or avoided. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:194-232. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC5892208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective pharmacologic treatments for psychiatric disorders are available, but their effect is limited due to patients' genetic heterogeneity and low compliance-related to frequent adverse events. Only one third of patients respond to treatment and experience remission. Pharmacogenetics is a relatively young field which focusses on genetic analyses in the context of the metabolism and outcome of drug treatment. These genetic factors can, among other things, lead to differences in the activity of enzymes that metabolize drugs. Recently, a clinical guideline was authorized by the Dutch Clinical Psychiatric Association (NVvP) on the clinical use of pharmacogenetics in psychiatry. The main goal was to provide guidance, based on current evidence, on how to best use genotyping in clinical psychiatric practice. A systematic literature search was performed, and available publications were assessed using the GRADE methodology. General recommendations for psychiatric clinical practice were provided, and specific recommendations per medication were made available. This clinical guideline for caregivers prescribing psychotropic drugs is the product of a broad collaboration of professionals from different disciplines, making use of the information available at the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) so far. We summarize the relevant literature and all recommendations in this article. General recommendations are provided and also detailed recommendations per medication. In summary we advise to consider genotyping, when there are side effects or inefficacy for CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. When genotype information is available use this to select the right drug in the right dose for the right patient.
| S-EPMC8117336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medical guidelines have become established as the standard for the comprehensive synopsis of all available information (scientific trials, expert opinion) on diagnosis and treatment recommendations. The transfer of guidelines to clinical practice and subsequent monitoring has however proven difficult. In particular the potential interaction between guideline developers and guideline users has not been fully utilised. This review article analyses the status quo and existing methodological and technical information solutions supporting the guideline life cycle. It is shown that there are numerous innovative developments that in isolation do not provide comprehensive support. The vision of the "Living Guidelines 2.0" is therefore presented. This outlines the merging of guideline development and implementation on the basis of clinical pathways and guideline-based quality control, and building on this, the generation of information for guideline development and research.
| S-EPMC4846406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care professionals are increasingly using smartphones in clinical care. Smartphone use can affect patient quality of care and clinical outcomes.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to describe how physicians use smartphones and mobile apps in clinical settings.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported the results according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We used the following databases in our literature search: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and gray literature for studies published since 2010. An additional search was also performed by scanning the reference lists of included studies. A narrative synthesis approach was used.ResultsA total of 10 studies, published between 2016 and 2021, were included in this review. Of these studies, 8 used surveys and 2 used surveys with focus group study designs to explore smartphone use, its adoption, experience of using it, and views on the use of smartphones among physicians. There were studies with only general practitioners (n=3), studies with only specialists (n=3), and studies with both general practitioners and specialists (n=4). Physicians use smartphones and mobile apps for communication (n=9), clinical decision-making (n=7), drug compendium (n=7), medical education and training (n=7), maintaining health records (n=4), managing time (n=4), and monitoring patients (n=2) in clinical practice. The Medscape medical app was frequently used for information gathering. WhatsApp, a nonmedical app, was commonly used for physician-patient communication. The commonly reported barriers were lack of regulatory oversight, privacy concerns, and limited Wi-Fi or internet access. The commonly reported facilitator was convenience and having access to evidence-based medicine, clinical decision-making support, and a wide array of apps.ConclusionsSmartphones and mobile apps were used for communication, medical education and training, clinical decision-making, and drug compendia in most studies. Although the benefits of smartphones and mobile apps for physicians at work were promising, there were concerns about patient privacy and confidentiality. Legislation is urgently needed to protect the liability of health care professionals using smartphones.
| S-EPMC10131676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.ObjectiveTo understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.MethodsAn integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.ResultsFifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.ConclusionA comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.
| S-EPMC5806202 | biostudies-literature