Tara Clinton-McHarg1, Christine Paul2, Allison Boyes1, Shiho Rose1, Paula Vallentine3, Lorna O'Brien3. 1. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia. 2. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, Australia. Electronic address: chris.paul@newcastle.edu.au. 3. Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the: (1) proportion of studies that describe characteristics of helpline service delivery, compared to the proportion that report trials testing efficacy or effectiveness of helplines in changing user outcomes; (2) proportion of efficacy or effectiveness studies that meet EPOC criteria for methodological rigor; and (3) potential benefits of cancer helplines for people affected by cancer based on findings from rigorous efficacy or effectiveness trials. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched to identify English-language studies describing original research published from 1991 to 2011. RESULTS: Twenty-eight publications met the review inclusion criteria. From these studies, data on: the characteristics of cancer helpline users; call content; and user satisfaction, were extracted. The potential for helplines to improve the psychosocial outcomes of callers was examined for the three intervention trials. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of robust evidence regarding the level and types of benefits that cancer helplines may deliver to callers affected by cancer. Given increased emphasis on delivering best-practise supportive care, building the evidence base in this field may assist cancer helplines to increase their service uptake, reach, and benefit to callers. PRACTISE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for more rigorous intervention-focussed studies in this field across a broader range of cancer populations. Future studies should focus on relevant patient-centred outcomes, such as improved knowledge and greater involvement in decision-making, while incorporating process measures to account for intervention fidelity and clinical performance.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the: (1) proportion of studies that describe characteristics of helpline service delivery, compared to the proportion that report trials testing efficacy or effectiveness of helplines in changing user outcomes; (2) proportion of efficacy or effectiveness studies that meet EPOC criteria for methodological rigor; and (3) potential benefits of cancer helplines for people affected by cancer based on findings from rigorous efficacy or effectiveness trials. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched to identify English-language studies describing original research published from 1991 to 2011. RESULTS: Twenty-eight publications met the review inclusion criteria. From these studies, data on: the characteristics of cancer helpline users; call content; and user satisfaction, were extracted. The potential for helplines to improve the psychosocial outcomes of callers was examined for the three intervention trials. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of robust evidence regarding the level and types of benefits that cancer helplines may deliver to callers affected by cancer. Given increased emphasis on delivering best-practise supportive care, building the evidence base in this field may assist cancer helplines to increase their service uptake, reach, and benefit to callers. PRACTISE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for more rigorous intervention-focussed studies in this field across a broader range of cancer populations. Future studies should focus on relevant patient-centred outcomes, such as improved knowledge and greater involvement in decision-making, while incorporating process measures to account for intervention fidelity and clinical performance.
Authors: David J T Marco; Anna G Boltong; Adrian Dabscheck; Georgina Akers; Michelle Pryce; Victoria M White Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-09-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Christine L Paul; Allison W Boyes; Lorna O'Brien; Amanda L Baker; Frans A Henskens; Ian Roos; Tara Clinton-McHarg; Douglas Bellamy; Glenda Colburn; Shiho Rose; Martine E Cox; Elizabeth A Fradgley; Hannah Baird; Daniel Barker Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-10-26
Authors: Ana Babac; Martin Frank; Frédéric Pauer; Svenja Litzkendorf; Daniel Rosenfeldt; Verena Lührs; Lisa Biehl; Tobias Hartz; Holger Storf; Franziska Schauer; Thomas O F Wagner; J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Hely Shah; Lisa Vandermeer; Fiona MacDonald; Gail Larocque; Shannon Nelson; Mark Clemons; Sharon F McGee Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.359