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)
| | | | | | |
++
| |