Advertisement
Table 5 The impact and effect sizes of the studies on patients, care providers and organisations*
| Studies | Doctor-patient communication | Monitor treatment response | Detect unrecognised problems | Changes to patient health behaviour | Changes to patient management | Improved patient satisfaction | Improved health outcomes | Feasibility of the implementation | Moderating and subgroup effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trowbridge et al. (1997)[39] | ++ | ++ | + (but no change in PMI) | +++ | |||||
| Tazenzer et al. (2000)[33] | +++ | ++ | + | - | +++ | ||||
| McLachlan et al. (2001)[38] | -(no time differences in consultation between two arms) | -(only 37% patients receiving anticancer therapy at baseline) | - | - | +++ | + (on high BDI score subgroup) | |||
| Detmar et al. (2002)[37] | +++ (10 out of 12 HRoL measures, especially on social functioning and fatigue) | ++ | + (increased patient counselling) +( 25% with family members and primary care physicians) | + (emotional support) | + (SF-36) | +++ | + (before-after improvement by intervention group) | ||
| ++ (information sharing & communication) | |||||||||
| Mooney et al. (2002)[16] | +++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | ||||
| Velikova et al. (2004)[36] | +++ | ++ (64% encounters involving referring to HRoL by physicians) | -(possible due to simple coding between two arms) +(contributed to patient management in 11% of encounters intervention arm). | ++(overall quality of life and emotional functioning) | ++ (response rate 70%) | + (more discussion of HRoL subgroup had better outcome within intervention group) | |||
| Basch et al. (2005)[41] | +++ | + | ++ | +++ | + | ++ (65% patient log in before any verbal encouragement) | |||
| Boyes et al. (2006)[35] | + (50% oncologists in intervention group talked with patients) | - | ++ (fewer deliberating symptoms) -(anxiety and depression) | + | - | ||||
| Hoekstra et al. (2006)[42] | +/−(Only 18% patients used it enhancing communication) | - | ++ (lower prevalence in 9 out of 10 symptoms; deteriorated less in 8 out of 10 symptoms) | + | The beneficial effects were pronounced in the deteriorated group. | ||||
| Korniblith et al. (2006)[43] | +++ (both arms) | ++ (more from TM+EM arm) | ++ (both arms) | ++ (better in TM+EM arm –reduction of psychological distress) | ++ | ||||
| Basch et al. (2007)[44] | + | ++ | ++ (can be improved through reminder) | ||||||
| Rosenbloom et al. (2007)[34] | -(Possible Ceiling effect) | - | - | - | ++ | No effect even among the most highly distressed patients | |||
| Weaver et al. (2007)[45] | + (nurse-patient communication) | + | + | + | + | + | ++ | ||
| Butt et al. (2008)[46] | ++ | + | + | + | ++ | ++ | |||
| Given et al. (2008)[47] | + | + | ++ (ATSM more likely to generated responses in symptom management and required less time to do so) | ++ | + (Compared with patients receiving combination chemotherapy protocols, those patients treated with single agent had greater response and shorter time to response) | ||||
| Hilarius et al. (2008)[48] | ++ | + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | |||
| Mark et al. (2008)[49] | ++ | + | + | + | ++ | ++ | |||
| Kearney et al. (2009)[50] | ++ | + | ++ | ++ | ++ (Fatigue) | +++ | |||
| Carlson et al. (2010)[51] | +++ (distress) ++ (decreased depression and anxiety related to referral to services) | +++ | |||||||
| Dinkel et al. (2010)[52] | + | + | + | ++ | |||||
| Halkett et al. (2010)[11] | + (around 25% of doctors) | + (10% patients reported changed outcomes) | + (patients is generally happy with both methods) -(Health professionals found some issues) | +/− (some issues identified but nothing fundamental and patients were generally happy) | |||||
| Ruland et al. (2010)[53] | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | |||||
| Velikova et al. (2010)[54] | ++ | (no difference in coordination of care & ‘preferences to see usual doctor’ subscale) | ++(86% in intervention vs 29% in the attention-control group) | ++ | |||||
| Bainbridge et al. (2011) [55] | + | + | + | ++ | + 89% of nurses and 55% of physicians referred to the ESAS in clinics ‘always’ or ‘ most of the time’ | ||||
| Berry et al. (2011)[56] | ++ (25% physician explicitly referred to SQLI summary) | ++ | ++ (the treatment effect on communication is evident on over threshold group on cognitive function, impact on sex and social function) | ||||||
| Cleeland et al. (2011)[20] | ++ | + | + | + | + | ++ | ++ | ||
| Takeuchi et al. (2011)[57] | ++ (on symptom but not function) | ++ |
