Effects of Peer-Led Interventions for Patients With Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: To evaluate the effects of peer-led supportive interventions for patients with cancer. LITERATURE SEARCH: Six electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE®, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Medical Library, and CINAHL®) were searched for articles published from 1997 to May...
| Publicado en: | Oncology Nursing Forum Vol. 45; no. 2; pp. 217 - 237 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Oncology Nursing Society
Mar2018
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=128122145&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 128122145 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 0190535X 4F0 jtl: Oncology Nursing Forum issn: 0190535X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2018 vid: 45 iid: 2 pid: 12496 pub: Oncology Nursing Society place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 128122145 128122145 128122145 10.1188/18.ONF.217-236 128122145 ppf: 217 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Effects of Peer-Led Interventions for Patients With Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. aug: au: Myung Kyung Lee Soon-Rim Suh affil: Assistant professor, College of Nursing and Research Institute of Nursing Science at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, South Korea sug: subj: Cancer Patients Psychosocial Factors Support Groups Peer Group Cancer Survivors Human Systematic Review Embase Medline CINAHL Database Meta Analysis Cochrane Library Confidence Intervals Outcomes (Health Care) Coping Counseling ab: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: To evaluate the effects of peer-led supportive interventions for patients with cancer. LITERATURE SEARCH: Six electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE®, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Medical Library, and CINAHL®) were searched for articles published from 1997 to May 2017. DATA EVALUATION: A total of 159 studies were identified. Eighteen (16 randomized, controlled trials [RCTs] and 2 non-RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and 16 for meta-analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software were used for analysis. SYNTHESIS: The authors synthesized the results of the effect size of each trial according to cancer symptoms, coping, emotional health, quality of life, self-efficacy, sexuality, social support, and healthrelated behaviors. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The findings from this study suggest that an additional tiered evaluation that has a theoretical underpinning and high-quality methodology is required to confirm the efficacy of peer-led supportive interventions within cancer care models. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: meta analysis research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|