Amy Waller1, Kristy Forshaw, Jamie Bryant, Shannon Mair. 1. Health Behaviour Research Group, Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW, Australia, amy.waller@newcastle.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy can be physically and psychologically stressful for people with cancer. Providing preparatory information to cancer patients as they face treatment and its aftermath has the potential to improve patient outcomes. This study assessed the methodological quality and effectiveness of interventions providing preparatory information about chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy to cancer patients in improving patient outcomes and health care use. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from January 1995 until October 2012. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) met Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria for study design; (2) included adults with a current cancer diagnosis; (3) delivered preparatory information via a health care provider or was self-directed; (4) examined psychological well-being, quality of life, physical symptoms, satisfaction, knowledge, or health service utilisation. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the EPOC criteria. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 3,443 cancer patients met inclusion criteria. Interventions included written information, audiotapes, videotapes, and computer programs. Interventions improved patient satisfaction (6/7 studies), information needs and patient knowledge (5/6 studies), physical symptoms (3/4 studies) and cost (1/1 study). More than half of the interventions improved psychological outcomes and quality of life (10/17 studies). CONCLUSION: Providing preparatory information can improve patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy, especially with respect to satisfaction and knowledge. Some, but not all, studies improved psychological outcomes and physical symptoms. There is a need for methodologically rigorous research to determine the most effective timing and method of delivery of preparatory information to improve patient outcomes.
PURPOSE: Undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy can be physically and psychologically stressful for people with cancer. Providing preparatory information to cancerpatients as they face treatment and its aftermath has the potential to improve patient outcomes. This study assessed the methodological quality and effectiveness of interventions providing preparatory information about chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy to cancerpatients in improving patient outcomes and health care use. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from January 1995 until October 2012. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) met Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria for study design; (2) included adults with a current cancer diagnosis; (3) delivered preparatory information via a health care provider or was self-directed; (4) examined psychological well-being, quality of life, physical symptoms, satisfaction, knowledge, or health service utilisation. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the EPOC criteria. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 3,443 cancerpatients met inclusion criteria. Interventions included written information, audiotapes, videotapes, and computer programs. Interventions improved patient satisfaction (6/7 studies), information needs and patient knowledge (5/6 studies), physical symptoms (3/4 studies) and cost (1/1 study). More than half of the interventions improved psychological outcomes and quality of life (10/17 studies). CONCLUSION: Providing preparatory information can improve patient-reported outcomes in cancerpatients undergoing chemotherapy and radiotherapy, especially with respect to satisfaction and knowledge. Some, but not all, studies improved psychological outcomes and physical symptoms. There is a need for methodologically rigorous research to determine the most effective timing and method of delivery of preparatory information to improve patient outcomes.
Authors: Phyllis N Butow; Fiona Phillips; Janine Schweder; Kate White; Craig Underhill; David Goldstein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sibilah J Breen; Carl M Baravelli; Penelope E Schofield; Michael Jefford; Patsy M Yates; Sanchia K Aranda Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Allen M Chen; Richard L S Jennelle; Victoria Grady; Adrienne Tovar; Kris Bowen; Patty Simonin; Janice Tracy; Dale McCrudden; Jonathan R Stella; Srinivasan Vijayakumar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anand Dhruva; Steven M Paul; Bruce A Cooper; Kathryn Lee; Claudia West; Bradley E Aouizerat; Laura B Dunn; Patrick S Swift; William Wara; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Erin M Bange; Abigail Doucette; Peter E Gabriel; Florence Porterfield; James J Harrigan; Robin Wang; Andrzej P Wojcieszynski; Ben Boursi; Bethany I Mooney; Kim A Reiss; Ronac Mamtani Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Yobelli A Jimenez; Steven Cumming; Wei Wang; Kirsty Stuart; David I Thwaites; Sarah J Lewis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rochelle Watson; Jamie Bryant; Robert Sanson-Fisher; Heidi Turon; Lisa Hyde; Anne Herrmann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R Babapour Mofrad; Leonie Nicoline Cornelia Visser; Agnetha Diantha Fruijtier; Philip Scheltens; Elisabeth Ellen Maria Antonia Smets; Wiesje Maria van der Flier; Charlotte Elisabeth Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2019-06-12