Nadia Corsini1,2, Kim Neylon1,2, Esther Jie Tian3, Elminur Mahpirof3, Amy McLaughlin3, Susan Mcleod3, Paul McNamara3, Mary Metaxas3, Sophia Minos3, Rebecca Sharp2, Saravana Kumar4. 1. Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. 3. School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. 4. School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. saravana.kumar@unisa.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.
PURPOSE: As a treatment summary (TS) documents information for follow-up care, it is believed to be an important communication tool for the patient, their GP, and other health professionals. The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the impact of receiving a TS for cancer survivors when compared to receiving standard care and to identify knowledge gaps to inform future research. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken from August 2018 to October 2018. Studies were included if participants (cancer survivors) were over 18 years of age and had received a TS, and if outcomes for TS could be separated from other survivorship interventions. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. A narrative synthesis of the study outcomes was then conducted. RESULTS: Seven studies (one prospective cohort and six cross-sectional studies) met the inclusion criteria. The impact of TS was assessed using widely varied outcomes in these studies. Overall, receipt of a TS was related to greater patient understanding and perception of the quality of care provided. However, caution is required when interpreting these results due to methodological limitations. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that TS may have a positive impact on patient understandings about and perceptions of cancer care. However, more robust research including perspectives of cancer survivors is required. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: TS could play an important role for cancer survivors especially in terms of knowledge of cancer care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer survivors; Communication tool; Supportive care; Survivorship; Systematic review; Treatment summary
Authors: Hao Luo; Daniel A Galvão; Robert U Newton; Pedro Lopez; Colin Tang; Ciaran M Fairman; Nigel Spry; Dennis R Taaffe Journal: Pancreas Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.243