Dataset Information

Review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life in cancer survivors.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Over two million people in the UK are living with and beyond cancer. A third report diminished quality of life. DESIGN:A review of published systematic reviews to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors. DATA SOURCES:Databases searched until May 2017 included PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION:Published systematic reviews of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people living with and beyond cancer were included; included reviews targeted patients aged over 18. All participants had already received a cancer diagnosis. Interventions located in any healthcare setting, home or online were included. Reviews of alternative therapies or those non-English reports were excluded. Two researchers independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full text of papers, and independently extracted the data. OUTCOMES:The primary outcome of interest was any measure of global (overall) quality of life. ANALYTICAL METHODS:Quality assessment assessing methdological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and narrative synthesis, evaluating effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions and their components. RESULTS:Of 14?430 unique titles, 21 were included in the review of reviews. There was little overlap in the primary papers across these reviews. Thirteen reviews covered mixed tumour groups, seven focused on breast cancer and one focused on prostate cancer. Face-to-face interventions were often combined with online, telephone and paper-based reading materials. Interventions included physical, psychological or behavioural, multidimensional rehabilitation and online approaches. Yoga specifically, physical exercise more generally, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programmes showed benefit in terms of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise-based interventions were effective in the short (less than 3-8 months) and long term. CBT and MBSR also showed benefits, especially in the short term. The evidence for multidisciplinary, online and educational interventions was equivocal.

SUBMITTER: Duncan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5719270 | biostudies-other | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life in cancer survivors.

Duncan Morvwen M Moschopoulou Elisavet E Herrington Eldrid E Deane Jennifer J Roylance Rebecca R Jones Louise L Bourke Liam L Morgan Adrienne A Chalder Trudie T Thaha Mohamed A MA Taylor Stephanie C SC Korszun Ania A White Peter D PD Bhui Kamaldeep K

BMJ open 20171128 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>Over two million people in the UK are living with and beyond cancer. A third report diminished quality of life.<h4>Design</h4>A review of published systematic reviews to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors.<h4>Data sources</h4>Databases searched until May 2017 included PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO.<h4>Study ...[more]

PMID: 29187408

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSleep disturbances constitute a common complication in pediatric cancer patients and survivors and are frequently severe enough to warrant treatment. Suboptimal sleep has been associated with decreased emotional well-being and cognitive functioning and increased behavioral problems. Standardized guidelines for non-pharmacological sleep interventions for adults with cancer exist, but no standard of care intervention or standard guidelines are available to guide such intervention in pediatric cancer patients and survivors. Therefore, effective behavioral interventions for improving sleep quality need to be identified. The objective of the review is to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological sleep interventions on sleep quality in pediatric cancer patients and survivors.MethodsThe review will consider studies that include children and adolescents between 0 and 18 years diagnosed with cancer or who have a history of cancer who have non-respiratory sleep disturbance. We will include experimental and quasi-experimental studies evaluating non-pharmacological interventions such as psychological interventions, technical/device interventions, interventions targeting physical activity, and complementary and alternative medicine interventions (e.g., yoga, massage, music). Interventions involving medications, ingestible supplements, products purported to work through absorption, and medical devices will be excluded. Primary outcome will be sleep quality as measured by methods including retrospective ratings, daily sleep diary, and validated questionnaires. Secondary outcomes will include total sleep time, sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, daytime sleepiness, and daytime sleep duration (naps) as measured by retrospective ratings, daily sleep diary, validated questionnaires, and/or actigraphy. Databases will include MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, CINAHL (Ebsco), and PsycINFO (Ovid) and will be queried from database inception to present. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. The study methodological quality will be assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. Data will be extracted and findings pooled and synthesized using a meta-aggregation approach via the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information (SUMARI). If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g., methodological quality, study design, outcome measures).DiscussionThis systematic review will synthesize and consolidate evidence on existing non-pharmacological interventions to improve sleep in pediatric cancer patients and survivors. Findings may help inform practitioners working with pediatric cancer patients and survivors experiencing sleep disturbances and is intended to identify gaps and opportunities to improve methodical quality of further non-pharmacological sleep intervention research in this population toward developing an eventual standard of care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020200397 .

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to summarise the evidence on more than 140 pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD) and to evaluate the confidence that patients and clinicians can have in the underlying science about their effects.DesignThis is a review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesThis study used MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Epistemonikos from 2011 up to February 2017 for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in adult patients with acute-phase MDD.MethodsWe dually reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, rated the risk of bias of eligible systematic reviews and graded the strength of evidence.ResultsNineteen systematic reviews provided data on 28 comparisons of interest. For general efficacy, only second-generation antidepressants were supported with high strength evidence, presenting small beneficial treatment effects (standardised mean difference: -0.35; 95% CI -0.31 to -0.38), and a statistically significantly higher rate of discontinuation because of adverse events than patients on placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95%?CI 1.0 to 3.28).Only cognitive behavioural therapy is supported by reliable evidence (moderate strength of evidence) to produce responses to treatment similar to those of second-generation antidepressants (45.5% vs 44.2%; RR 1.10; 95%?CI 0.93 to 1.30). All remaining comparisons of non-pharmacological treatments with second-generation antidepressants either led to inconclusive results or had substantial methodological shortcomings (low or insufficient strength of evidence).ConclusionsIn contrast to pharmacological treatments, the majority of non-pharmacological interventions for treating patients with MDD are not evidence based. For patients with strong preferences against pharmacological treatments, clinicians should focus on therapies that have been compared directly with antidepressants.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: 42016035580.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.MethodsA comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.ResultsA total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.ConclusionsThe abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Project description:BackgroundHospitalized patients experience sleep disruption with consequential physiological and psychological effects. Surgical patients are particularly at risk due to surgical stress and postoperative pain. This systematic review aimed to identify non-pharmacological interventions for improving sleep and exploring their effects on sleep-related and clinical outcomes.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EA6BN) and last updated in November 2023. Studies that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions for hospitalized, adult patients were included. Thematic content analysis was performed to identify hypothesized mechanisms of action and modes of administration, in collaboration with a patient partner. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias (ROB) or Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools.ResultsA total of 59 eligible studies and data from 14 035 patients were included; 28 (47.5%) were randomized trials and 26 included surgical patients (10 trials). Thirteen unique non-pharmacological interventions were identified, 17 sleep measures and 7 linked health-related outcomes. Thematic analysis revealed two major themes for improving sleep in hospital inpatients: enhancing the sleep environment and utilizing relaxation and mindfulness techniques. Two methods of administration, self-administered and carer-administered, were identified. Environmental interventions, such as physical aids, and relaxation interventions, including aromatherapy, showed benefits to sleep measures. There was a lack of standardized sleep measurement and an overall moderate to high risk of bias across all studies.ConclusionsThis systematic review has identified several sleep interventions that are likely to benefit adult surgical patients, but there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to support their routine implementation.

Project description:BackgroundCultural competency is a recognized and popular approach to improving the provision of health care to racial/ethnic minority groups in the community with the aim of reducing racial/ethnic health disparities. The aim of this systematic review of reviews is to gather and synthesize existing reviews of studies in the field to form a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence base that can guide future interventions and research in the area.MethodsA systematic review of review articles published between January 2000 and June 2012 was conducted. Electronic databases (including Medline, Cinahl and PsycINFO), reference lists of articles, and key websites were searched. Reviews of cultural competency in health settings only were included. Each review was critically appraised by two authors using a study appraisal tool and were given a quality assessment rating of weak, moderate or strong.ResultsNineteen published reviews were identified. Reviews consisted of between 5 and 38 studies, included a variety of health care settings/contexts and a range of study types. There were three main categories of study outcomes: patient-related outcomes, provider-related outcomes, and health service access and utilization outcomes. The majority of reviews found moderate evidence of improvement in provider outcomes and health care access and utilization outcomes but weaker evidence for improvements in patient/client outcomes.ConclusionThis review of reviews indicates that there is some evidence that interventions to improve cultural competency can improve patient/client health outcomes. However, a lack of methodological rigor is common amongst the studies included in reviews and many of the studies rely on self-report, which is subject to a range of biases, while objective evidence of intervention effectiveness was rare. Future research should measure both healthcare provider and patient/client health outcomes, consider organizational factors, and utilize more rigorous study designs.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) experience psychological comorbidities and impaired quality of life (QOL). We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for improving psychological outcomes and/or QOL in patients with SLE. To expand on a previous systematic review in this area and enhance our understanding of efficacious interventions for this population, our search included quasi-experimental and experimental studies of interventions delivered or supported by remote methods (including digitally) or in person.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted with a research librarian using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered before data extraction on the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO Web site (CRD42020154962). The search included controlled-vocabulary and title/abstract terms related to non-pharmacological interventions for SLE published through October 2019 in MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library databases (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science (Clarivate), ACM Digital (Association of Computer Machinery), and IEEE Xplore. Studies were synthesized using a systematic narrative synthesis framework. Risk of bias was assessed.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included: 21 randomized controlled trials and two quasi-experimental studies. Non-pharmacological diet, physical activity, psychological, and course-based interventions improved QOL and psychological outcomes, and were delivered in traditional settings (e.g., hospital) or remotely. No studies assessing digital non-pharmacological interventions were identified in our search. Quality assessments showed serious risk of bias for the two quasi-experimental studies, and high risk of bias in a subset of experimental studies.ConclusionsNon-pharmacological interventions benefit patients with SLE. Future research should include more representative samples in rigorous evaluations and consider ways to incorporate digital technologies to increase accessibility.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic debilitating disease that targets the central nervous system. Globally it is estimated that 2.8 million people live with MS (2018) and as there is no known cure; therefore, identifying methods to increase a patient's quality of life (QoL) is of considerable importance. Non-pharmacological interventions are a viable and effective option to increase QoL in patients with MS, however, to date, the literature lacks a complete systematic review of these interventions.MethodsA literature search was conducted for studies published up until March 4th 2022 in Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, The Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. Studies were included if they were randomized control trials (RCTs) assessing a non-pharmacological intervention in adults with MS and measured QoL using the MSQOL-54, SF-36 or MSQLI tools for at least two time points. Quality assessment of each study was completed as well as a review of publication bias. Where possible, meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model and for other studies a qualitative synthesis was presented.ResultsThirty studies were included in the meta-analysis and eleven studies were summarized qualitatively. The pooled effects across all non-pharmacological interventions showed a modest improvement in both the physical and mental components of QoL, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.61) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24-0.60), respectively. Non-pharmacological interventions based around a physical activity were found to be particularly effective in improving both the physical composite score (PCS) and mental composite score (MCS), with an SMD of 0.40 (95% CI 0.14-0.66) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.08-0.55), respectively. Interventions incorporating balance exercises presented a significant advantageous solution for improving QoL, with an SMD of 1.71 (95% CI 1.22, 2.20) and 1.63(95% CI 1.15-2.12) for PCS and MCS respectively.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis identified that non-pharmacological interventions can be an effective method of improving QoL in patients with MS, especially modalities with a physical activity component and balance interventions.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.MethodsSystematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.ResultsWe identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.ConclusionsMost systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research.

Dataset Information

Review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life in cancer survivors.

Publications

Review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life in cancer survivors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets