Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reforming support systems of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients: a systematic review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Reforming support systems of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients: a systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Reforming support systems of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients: a systematic review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Reforming support systems of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients: a systematic review
2022
Overview
Purpose
Despite the increasing incidence of currently incurable brain cancer, limited resources are placed in patients’ support systems, with reactive utilisation late in the disease course, when physical and psychological symptoms have peaked. Based on patient-derived data and emphasis on service improvement, this review investigated the structure and efficacy of the support methods of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients in healthcare systems.
Methods
This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Articles from PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were screened with six pre-established eligibility criteria, including assessment within 6 months from diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist.
Results
Of 5057 original articles, 14 were eligible for qualitative synthesis. Four studies were cross-sectional and ten were descriptive. Information given to patients was evaluated in seven studies, communication with patients in nine, and patient participation in treatment decisions in eight. Risk of bias was low in ten studies, moderate in two, and high in two.
Conclusions
Techniques promoting individualised care increased perceived support, despite poor patient-physician communication and complexity of the healthcare system. Extracted data across 14 included studies informed a set of guidelines and a four-step framework. These can help evaluate and reform healthcare services to better accommodate the supportive needs of this patient group.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
