ABSTRACT
AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe case management as experienced by patients with heart failure and their health professionals with the aim of understanding why case management might contribute in reducing hospital admissions. BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common cause of unplanned hospital admission. The evidence for case management in patients with heart failure for reducing admissions is promising. DESIGN: Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. DATA SOURCE: Searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, Kings Fund database and Cinahl from inception of each database to 16 February 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Robust systematic review methodology was used to identify qualitative studies describing the experiences of patients with heart failure and healthcare providers of case management. Data were synthesized thematically, and analytic themes were developed. FINDINGS: Five studies (six papers) from which nine descriptive themes were used to determine three analytic themes. This synthesis showed that case management provides positive quality of care for patients, increases perceived access to services and creates more time to ask questions and develop trusted relationships. For health professionals, case management enhanced care by improved relationships with both patients and colleagues although concerns remained around resources, training and inter-professional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis emphasizes the importance of the quality of being cared for as a patient and caring as a health professional. Case management enhances communication between patients and health professionals, supports patient self-care and self-management and can be an important contributing factor in reducing unplanned admissions for patients with heart failure.
Subject(s)
Case Management/standards , Community Health Services/standards , Heart Failure/therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Communication , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction , Professional-Patient Relations , Quality of Health Care , Young AdultABSTRACT
Men with prostate cancer are likely to have a long illness and experience psychological distress for which supportive care may be helpful. This systematic review describes the evidence for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of supportive care for men with prostate cancer, taking into account treatment pathway and components of interventions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Psychinfo were searched from inception--July 2013 for randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Twenty-six studies were included (2740 participants). Interventions were delivered pre and during (n = 12), short-term (n = 8), and longer term (18 months) (n = 5) after primary treatment. No interventions were delivered beyond this time. Few trials recruited ethnic minorities and none recruited men in same sex relationships. Intervention components included information, education, health professional discussion, homework, peer discussion, buddy support, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive restructuring, psychoeducation, Reiki and relaxation. Most interventions were delivered for 5-10 weeks. Risk of bias of trials was assessed as unclear for most domains due to lack of information. The majority of trials measuring quality of life and depression found no effect. Relatively few trials measured anxiety, coping skills and self-efficacy, and the majority found no effect. No cost data were available. Trials of supportive care for men with prostate cancer cover a range of interventions but are limited by population diversity, inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes, and inability to assess risk of bias. Recommendations on design and conduct of future trials are presented.
