PurposeThis study investigates patients’ experiences of interaction with their healthcare professionals (HCPs) during cancer treatment and identifies elements that HCPs can utilize to improve cancer care provision.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies published from January 2010 until February 2022. Qualitative studies investigating adult patients’ perspectives on their interaction with HCPs during cancer treatment were included. Studies conducted during the diagnosis or end-of-life treatment phase were excluded. Duplicate removal, screening, and quality appraisal were independently performed by four reviewers using Covidence.org. We performed a thematic meta-synthesis of qualitative data extracted from studies meeting the quality criteria in three stages: excerpts coding, codes categorization, and theme identification by merging similar categories.ResultsEighty-eight studies were included for quality appraisal, of which 50 papers met the quality inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified as essential to positively perceived patient-HCP interaction: “Support, respect and agency”, “Quantity, timing, and clarity of information”, and “Confidence, honesty, and expertise”. Overall, patients experienced positive interaction with HCPs when the approach was person-centered and when HCPs possessed strong interpersonal skills. However, patients expressed negative experiences when their preferences regarding communication and the type of personal support needed were ignored.ConclusionsThis meta-synthesis emphasizes the importance for HCPs to recognize all patients’ needs, including communication and personal support preferences, to provide high-quality care. Consequently, healthcare professionals should continuously train their verbal and non-verbal communication, empathy, active listening, and collaboration skills during their undergraduate and continuing education.
MULTIFILE
Identifying factors that predict health-related quality of life (QOL) following hematopoietic SCT, is important in estimating patients’ abilities to adjust to the consequences of their disease and treatment. As the studies that have been published on this subject are scattered, the present study aimed to systematically review prognostic factors for health-related QOL after auto- and allo-SCT in hematological malignancies. A systematic, computerized search in Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library was conducted from 2002 to June 2010. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using an adaptation of Hayden's criteria list. Qualitative data synthesis was performed to determine the strength of the scientific evidence. In all, 35 studies fulfilled the selection criteria. Strong–moderate evidence was found for GVHD, conditioning regimen, being female, younger age, receiving less social support and pre-transplant psychological distress as predictors of various aspects of health-related QOL following hematopoietic SCT. The results of this review may help transplant teams in selecting patients at risk for experiencing a diminished health-related QOL following hematopoietic SCT. Follow-up treatment can be provided in order to promote QOL.
This systematic review aims to get insight into the feasibility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We will focus on quality (defined as the adherence to international guidelines for methods of CPET) and safety of CPET. Furthermore, we compare the peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2peak) values of patients with cancer with reference values for healthy persons to put these values into a clinical perspective. A computer aided search with ‘cardiopulmonary exercise testing’ and ‘cancer’ using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pedro, CINAHL® and SPORTDiscus™ was carried out. We included studies in which CPET with continuous gas exchange analysis has been performed prior to a physical exercise programme in adults with cancer. Twenty studies describing 1158 patients were eligible. Reported adherence to international recommendations for CPET varied per item. In most studies, the methods of CPET were not reported in detail. Adverse events occurred in 1% of patients. The percentage V̇O2peak of reference values for healthy persons varied between 65% and 89% for tests before treatment, between 74% and 96% for tests during treatment and between 52% and 117% for tests after treatment. Our results suggest that CPET is feasible and seems to be safe for patients with cancer prior to a physical exercise programme. We recommend that standard reporting and quality guidelines should be followed for CPET methods. The decreased V̇O2peak values of patients with cancer indicate that physical exercise should be implemented in their standard care.
