Dataset Information

Outcomes of patient education in adult oncologic patients receiving oral anticancer agents: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A large variety of oral anticancer agents have become available and while at first glance these therapies appear to provide only benefits, patients have expressed their need for educational interventions and raised safety issues. Although both patients and providers have recognized patient education's importance, and an interplay with safety has been acknowledged, no systematic reviews of the literature that summarize all of the current evidence related to patient education's outcomes for patients who receive oral anticancer agents have been performed to date. Accordingly, this systematic review will attempt to fill the gap in the literature as well as to map (1) contents, (2) methodologies, (3) settings, (4) timing/duration, and (5) healthcare professionals involved.

Methods

This protocol is being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic review will be performed. Studies that targeted eligible adult patients (≥ 18 years old) in hospital, outpatient, and home settings, and reported patient education's outcomes for those taking oral anticancer agents will be included. Searches will be conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus, and gray literature will be also sought. Two researchers will screen the search results independently and blindly in two phases: (1) title/abstract screening and (2) full-text screening using the Rayyan AI platform. An electronic data extraction form will be implemented and piloted, and then, two trained data extractors will extract the data cooperatively. Thereafter, a quality appraisal will be conducted using the Critical Appraisal Tools from The Joanna Briggs Institute. The results will be analyzed, grouped, clustered into categories, and discussed until a consensus is reached. Emerging evidence will be synthesized narratively and reported in accordance with the synthesis without meta-analysis guidelines.

Discussion

The systematic review's results will be relevant to (1) policymakers and management at an institutional level, and (2) for clinical practice, in an evidence-based paradigm, potentially leading to a quality improvement with respect to safety and patient satisfaction.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022341797.

SUBMITTER: Fonda F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10120216 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of patient education in adult oncologic patients receiving oral anticancer agents: a systematic review protocol.

Fonda Federico F Cedrone Sonja S Sartor Ivana I Cadorin Lucia L

Systematic reviews 20230420 1

<h4>Background</h4>A large variety of oral anticancer agents have become available and while at first glance these therapies appear to provide only benefits, patients have expressed their need for educational interventions and raised safety issues. Although both patients and providers have recognized patient education's importance, and an interplay with safety has been acknowledged, no systematic reviews of the literature that summarize all of the current evidence related to patient education's ...[more]

PMID: 37081567

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTelehomecare monitoring (TM) in patients with cancer is a complex intervention. Research shows variations in the benefits and challenges TM brings to equitable access to care, the therapeutic relationship, self-management, and practice transformation. Further investigation into these variations factors will improve implementation processes and produce effective outcomes.ObjectiveThis study aims to concurrently analyze implementation and evaluate the effectiveness of TM for patients receiving anticancer oral therapy. The objectives are to (1) contextualize how and why TM is implemented according to (a) site characteristics, (b) team characteristics, and (c) characteristics of patients receiving anticancer oral therapy; (2) assess TM effectiveness for recording electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) according to the site, implementation process, and patient characteristics; (3) describe the acceptability and feasibility of TM from the perspectives of the people directly or indirectly involved and provide evidence-based actionable guidance in anticipation of provincewide implementation.MethodsThis type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation study uses a concurrent mixed methods design. Evaluability assessment is integrated into an emerging practice in 3 participating sites to enable the evaluation of implementation strategies on TM clinical outcomes. Quantitative data for ePROMs and ePREMs will be collected using validated oncology questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and repeated measures using multiple linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations analyses will be undertaken alongside interpretive descriptive coding of qualitative data. Qualitative data will be gathered from key informants guided by the RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework and its extension, PRISM (practical robust implementation and sustainability model). The concurrent approach allows results at multiple stages of this study to be integrated iteratively. The methodological choice aims to provide real-world data that are rigorous, rapidly usable in practice, and transferable to other settings.ResultsQuestionnaires were pretested and the technological platform was codeveloped with members of the cancer care team and patients. Preparatory work was carried out to configure the TM platform and activate coordinating mechanisms between members of the cancer care team, patients, information technology experts, and the research team. A steering committee with 3 working groups was established to oversee the technological, clinical, and evaluation aspects of this study. Recruitment of patients for ePROMs started in February 2024, and data collection is expected to continue until March 2025. Interviews with members of the cancer care team began in November 2024. Full analysis should be completed by September 2025.ConclusionsThis study will clarify how, why, for whom, and under what conditions TM can complement current care models. Our evaluability assessment will help to address implementation complexities and better understand intervention-to-practice operationalization so that implementation might be adapted to contextual factors without potentially harmful or inequitable impacts on patients.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/63099.

Project description:PurposeIn an era of rapid expansion of FDA approvals for oral anticancer agents (OAAs), it is important to understand the factors associated with survival among real-world populations, which include groups not well-represented in pivotal clinical trials of OAAs, such as the elderly, racial minorities, and medically complex patients. Our objective was to evaluate patient- and provider-level characteristics' associations with mortality among a multi-payer cohort of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who initiated OAAs.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the North Carolina state cancer registry linked to multi-payer claims data for the years 2004 to 2015. Provider data were obtained from North Carolina Health Professions Data System and the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Included patients were individuals with mRCC who initiated an OAA and survived ≥90 days after beginning treatment. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence limits (CL) using Cox hazard models for associations between patient demographics, patient clinical characteristics, provider-level factors, and 2-year all-cause mortality.ResultsThe cohort included 207 patients with mRCC who received OAAs. In multivariable models, clinical variables such as frailty (HR: 1.36, 95% CL: 1.11-1.67) and de novo metastatic diagnosis (HR: 2.63, 95%CL: 1.67-4.16) were associated with higher all-cause mortality. Additionally, patients solely on Medicare had higher adjusted all-cause mortality compared with patients with any private insurance (HR: 2.35, 95% CL: 1.32-4.18). No provider-level covariates investigated were associated with all-cause mortality.ConclusionsWithin a real-world population of mRCC patients taking OAAs, survival differed based on patient characteristics. In an era of rapid expansion of FDA approvals for OAAs, these real-world data underscore the continued importance of access to high-quality care, particularly for medically complex patients with limited resources.

Project description:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of patient education in adult oncologic patients receiving oral anticancer agents: a systematic review protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Outcomes of patient education in adult oncologic patients receiving oral anticancer agents: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets