Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Investigating the Effectiveness of Psychological Short-Term Interventions in Inpatient Palliative Care Settings.

ABSTRACT: This paper reviews and summarises the evidence of short-term psychosocial interventions (up to 12 sessions delivered within less than eight weeks) on anxiety, depression, and emotional distress in palliative patients in inpatient settings. We screened publications from the following five databases, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL, from their inception to 10 September 2021. The eligible studies included controls receiving standard palliative care, actively treated controls, and wait-list controls. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria and reported the effects of five psychosocial interventions in a total of N = 543 patients. We followed PRISMA-guidelines for outcome reporting and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for assessing study quality. This paper used the network meta-analysis to compare multiple treatments by providing greater statistical power and the cross-validation of observed treatment effects, using the R package BUGSnet. Compared to control groups, the following psychosocial interventions in inpatient settings showed to be superior: life review interventions were the best ranked treatment for improving anxiety and distress, while the top ranked treatment for reducing depression was outlook intervention. The short-term psychosocial interventions investigated in this meta-analysis, especially life review intervention, are feasible and can potentially improve anxiety, depression, and distress in palliative inpatients and should therefore be offered in inpatient settings.

SUBMITTER: Schweighoffer R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9265936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients has been demonstrated to improve patients' health related quality of life (HRQoL) effectively. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in general health and HRQoL of cancer patients who were referred to inpatient rehabilitation (IR) with those in two control groups who underwent outpatient management either with advice for inpatient rehabilitation (A+) or without (A-). Methods: In this naturalistic, longitudinal, controlled cohort study, changes in general health and HRQoL were assessed at either discharge of acute hospital or start of rehabilitation (baseline) and at the follow-up 3 weeks later or end of rehabilitation. Outcome variables included general health and HRQoL assessed by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT), and fatigue (FACT-F), depression and anxiety by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Changes on the scores were compared with bivariate and multivariate analyses using standardized mean differences (SMD). Results: IR patients (n=133) were on average older, reported lower HRQoL and health, and suffered more frequently from carcinoma than patients of the A+ (n=30) and the A- (n=82) groups. In the IR patients, pain, physical functioning, mental health, vitality, and fatigue improved significantly compared to the A+ controls. Compared to the A- group, the bivariate effects were lower but still statistically significant on many scales. Conclusions: IR showed moderate, statistically significant superior effects over outpatient management of cancer patients after acute treatment. Findings indicate that inpatient cancer rehabilitation can be recommended as an effective management after acute treatment. As today, referrals to inpatient rehabilitation for cancer patients are still not based on structured standardized procedures, the implementation of such screening is needed to address patients' needs and to render the potential for rehabilitation more reliable.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness and reporting standards of psychological interventions for improving outcomes after total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN:Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to up to 9 May 2019 with no language restrictions applied. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of psychological interventions for short-term and long-term postoperative pain after TKR were included. Screening, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality were performed in duplicate by two reviewers. The primary effectiveness outcome was postoperative pain severity and the primary harm outcome was serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included function, quality of life, and psychological well-being. Reporting standards were assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist for intervention reporting. RESULTS:12 RCTs were included, with a total of 1299 participants. Psychological interventions comprised music therapy (five studies), guided imagery and music (one study), hypnosis (one study), progressive muscle relaxation with biofeedback (one study), pain coping skills programme (one study), cognitive-behavioural therapy (two studies), and a postoperative management programme (one study). Due to the high heterogeneity of interventions and poor reporting of harms data, it was not possible to make any definitive statements about the overall effectiveness or safety of psychology interventions for pain outcomes after TKR. CONCLUSION:Further evidence about the effectiveness of psychological interventions for improving pain outcomes after TKR is needed. The reporting of harm outcomes and intervention fidelity is currently poor and could be improved. Future work exploring the impact of intervention timing on effectiveness and whether different psychological approaches are needed to address acute postoperative pain and chronic postoperative pain would be of benefit. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018095100.

Project description:Objective: The objective of our current research is to compare the different psychological interventions and distinguish the most effective way to treat psychological crisis according to different clinical manifestations in people affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). No previous systematic review has provided a comprehensive overview by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of this current topic. Method: A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, case-control studies, self-controlled case series (SCCS), cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies of all the available interventions for psychological crisis in people affected by COVID-19. We searched the electronic databases EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library, as well as the Chinese databases such as Sinomed, Chinese Biomedicine Literature (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), WanFang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), from 2019 to April 30, 2020. The main outcomes were self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), and symptom checklist (SCL-90). The study is registered with Inplasy, number 202050076. Result: Sixteen self-controlled case series (SCCS) comprising 1,147 participants compared five different psychological interventions with four different measurement scales were included in this study. For effectiveness, all the psychological therapies were significantly more effective than before intervention. Our results showed that supportive therapy (ST), which is adjusted to the COVID-19-related mental crisis, is the best treatment compared with behavioral therapy (BT), nursing-based psychological therapy (NBPT), traditional Chinese medicine therapy (TCMT), and COVID-19-related standard training (CRST) at reducing the anxiety-related symptoms assessed by SAS. When measured by SDS, BT was better than ST and NBPT treatment for reducing the depression symptoms. And ST was better than BT and ST+BT as assessed by PHQ-9. In the end, the last network meta-analysis indicated that NBPT was more effective than ST by the measurement of SCL-90. Conclusion: Our research suggested the potential effectiveness of psychological interventions for decreasing psychological crisis in people affected by COVID-19 and try to introduce the best effective treatment options for clinical practice according to the clinical manifestations of psychological problems, but further confirmation from high-quality RCTs is needed.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the effectiveness of the vaccines against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) currently authorized in the United States with respect to hospitalization, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or ambulatory care in an emergency department or urgent care clinic.MethodsWe conducted a study involving adults (≥50 years of age) with Covid-19-like illness who underwent molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We assessed 41,552 admissions to 187 hospitals and 21,522 visits to 221 emergency departments or urgent care clinics during the period from January 1 through June 22, 2021, in multiple states. The patients' vaccination status was documented in electronic health records and immunization registries. We used a test-negative design to estimate vaccine effectiveness by comparing the odds of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated patients with those among unvaccinated patients. Vaccine effectiveness was adjusted with weights based on propensity-for-vaccination scores and according to age, geographic region, calendar time (days from January 1, 2021, to the index date for each medical visit), and local virus circulation.ResultsThe effectiveness of full messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination (≥14 days after the second dose) was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization, 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93) against infection leading to an ICU admission, and 91% (95% CI, 89 to 93) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. The effectiveness of full vaccination with respect to a Covid-19-associated hospitalization or emergency department or urgent care clinic visit was similar with the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines and ranged from 81% to 95% among adults 85 years of age or older, persons with chronic medical conditions, and Black or Hispanic adults. The effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was 68% (95% CI, 50 to 79) against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to hospitalization and 73% (95% CI, 59 to 82) against infection leading to an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit.ConclusionsCovid-19 vaccines in the United States were highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization, ICU admission, or an emergency department or urgent care clinic visit. This vaccine effectiveness extended to populations that are disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Investigating the Effectiveness of Psychological Short-Term Interventions in Inpatient Palliative Care Settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets