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
Study goal: This study was carried out to answer the following research question: which motivation do healthy volunteers have to participate in phase I clinical trials? - Methods: A literature search was done through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier, followed by three interviews with volunteers who had recently concluded their participation in a (non-commercial) phase I trial. - Results: Our literature search revealed mainly commercial motives for volunteers to participate in phase I clinical trials. The interviews (with volunteers in a non-commercial trial) showed that other factors may also play a decisive role, such as: (1) wish to support the investigator (2) wish to contribute to science, (3) access to more/better health care (4) sociability: possibility to relax and to communicate with other participants (5) general curiosity. Precondition is that risks and burden are deemed acceptable. - Conclusions: financial remuneration appears to be the predominant motive to participate voluntarily in a clinical trial. Other reasons were also mentioned however, such as general curiosity, the drive to contribute to science and the willingness to help the investigator. In addition, social reasons were given such as possibility to relax and to meet other people. Potential subjects state that they adequately assess the (safety) risks of participating in a trial as part of their decision process.
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led pre-operative prophylaxis and post-operative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on pre-operative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on post-operative interventions (one review assessed both pre-and post-operative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre- and post-operative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
MULTIFILE
