Anne-Marie Bagnall

How effective are patient-based educational interventions in the management of cancer pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT This review aimed to quantify the benefit of patient‐based educational interventions in the management of cancer pain. We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis of experimentally randomised and non‐randomised controlled clinical trials identified from six databases from inception to November 2007.Two reviewers independently selected trials comparing intervention (formal instruction on cancer pain and analgesia on an individual basis using any medium) to usual care or other control in adults with cancer pain. Methodological quality was assessed, and data extraction undertaken by one reviewer with a second reviewer checking for accuracy. We used random effects model to combine the effect estimates from studies. Main outcome measures were effects on knowledge and attitudes towards cancer pain and analgesia, and pain intensity. Twenty‐one trials (19 randomised) totalling 3501 patients met inclusion criteria, and 15 were included in the meta‐analysis. Compared to usual care or control, educational interventions improved knowledge and attitudes by half a point on 0–5 rating scale (weighted mean difference 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.04–1.0), reduced average pain intensity by over one point on 0–10 rating scale (WMD −1.1, −1.8 to −0.41) and reduced worst pain intensity by just under one point (WMD −0.78, −1.21 to −0.35). We found equivocal evidence for the effect of education on self‐efficacy, but no significant benefit on medication adherence or on reducing interference with daily activities. Patient‐based educational interventions can result in modest but significant benefits in the management of cancer pain, and are probably underused alongside more traditional analgesic approaches.

Assessing harmful effects in systematic Reviews

BackgroundBalanced decisions about health care interventions require reliable evidence on harms as well as benefits. Most systematic reviews focus on efficacy and randomised trials, for which the methodology is well established. Methods to systematically review harmful effects are less well developed and there are few sources of guidance for researchers. We present our own recent experience of conducting systematic reviews of harmful effects and make suggestions for future practice and further research.MethodsWe described and compared the methods used in three systematic reviews. Our evaluation focused on the review question, study designs and quality assessment.ResultsOne review question focused on providing information on specific harmful effects to furnish an economic model, the other two addressed much broader questions. All three reviews included randomised and observational data, although each defined the inclusion criteria differently. Standard methods were used to assess study quality. Various practical problems were encountered in applying the study design inclusion criteria and assessing quality, mainly because of poor study design, inadequate reporting and the limitations of existing tools. All three reviews generated a large volume of work that did not yield much useful information for health care decision makers. The key areas for improvement we identified were focusing the review question and developing methods for quality assessment of studies of harmful effects.ConclusionsSystematic reviews of harmful effects are more likely to yield information pertinent to clinical decision-making if they address a focused question. This will enable clear decisions to be made about the type of research to include in the review. The methodology for assessing the quality of harmful effects data in systematic reviews requires further development.

The use of telephone befriending in low level support for socially isolated older people--an evaluation.

There is increasing policy recognition that the alleviation of social isolation and loneliness in older people should be prioritised. Recently, technology, such as telephone networks and the Internet, has received attention in supporting isolated and lonely older people. Despite lack of evidence, telephone befriending has been considered an effective low-level method to decrease loneliness among older people. This study evaluated the impact of a national befriending scheme for isolated and/or lonely older people, involving eight project sites across the UK 2007-2008. The purpose was to assess the impact of different models of telephone-based befriending services on older peoples health and well-being. A mixed methods approach was used. This paper reports on the findings from 40 in-depth interviews with older service recipients. The most important finding was that the service helped older people to gain confidence, re-engage with the community and become socially active again. Three topics were identified: why older people valued the service, what impact it had made on their health and well-being and what they wanted from the service. In addition, nine subthemes emerged: life is worth living, gaining a sense of belonging, knowing they had a friend, a healthy mind is a healthy body, the alleviation of loneliness and anxiety, increased self-confidence, ordinary conversation, a trusted and reliable service, the future--giving something back. In conclusion, the findings present in-depth qualitative evidence of the impact of telephone befriending on older peoples well-being. Befriending schemes provide low-cost means for socially isolated older people to become more confident and independent and develop a sense of self-respect potentially leading to increased participation and meaningful relationships.

Educational interventions by pharmacists to patients with chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ObjectiveWe hypothesized that educational interventions delivered by pharmacists to patients with chronic pain might improve pain-related outcomes and sought to establish “proof of concept” for this hypothesis. MethodsWe searched electronic databases and published literature for randomized studies that examined an educational intervention in relation to the management of chronic pain that was delivered by a pharmacist to an adult patient. Four studies were included that randomized 400 patients with chronic pain and which followed up patients between 1 and 16 weeks. ResultsPatients receiving these interventions experienced statistically significant benefits in the following outcomes compared with controls: a reduction in average pain intensity of 0.5 on a 0 to 10 rating scale, a reduction in adverse effects by more than 50%, and an improvement in satisfaction with treatment equivalent to approximately 1 point on a 0 to 10 rating scale. The interventions neither had effect on reducing interference from pain on daily life, nor on improving self-efficacy. DiscussionPharmacist-delivered educational interventions seem to reduce adverse events and improve satisfaction, but their clinical benefit on pain intensity is debatable. Our analysis suggests that the role of pharmacists may be important but a deeper understanding and evaluation of the active components of these interventions is needed within clinical trials before wider implementation into clinical practice can be recommended.

Randomised controlled trials for policy interventions: a review of reviews and meta-regression.

OBJECTIVES To determine whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lead to the same effect size and variance as non-randomised studies (NRSs) of similar policy interventions, and whether these findings can be explained by other factors associated with the interventions or their evaluation. DATA SOURCES Two RCTs were resampled to compare randomised and non-randomised arms. Comparable field trials were identified from a series of health promotion systematic reviews and a systematic review of transition for youths with disabilities. Previous methodological studies were sought from 14 electronic bibliographic databases (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Australian Education Index, British Education Index, CareData, Dissertation Abstracts, EconLIT, Educational Resources Information Centre, International Bibliography of the Sociological Sciences, ISI Proceedings: Social Sciences and Humanities, PAIS International, PsycINFO, SIGLE, Social Science Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts) in June and July 2004. These were supplemented by citation searching for key authors, contacting review authors and searching key internet sites. REVIEW METHODS Analyses of previous resampling studies, replication studies, comparable field studies and meta-epidemiology investigated the relationship between randomisation and effect size of policy interventions. New resampling studies and new analyses of comparable field studies and meta-epidemiology were strengthened by testing pre-specified associations supported by carefully argued hypotheses. RESULTS Resampling studies offer no evidence that the absence of randomisation directly influences the effect size of policy interventions in a systematic way. Prior methodological reviews and meta-analyses of existing reviews comparing effects from RCTs and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs) suggested that effect sizes from RCTs and nRCTs may indeed differ in some circumstances and that these differences may well be associated with factors confounded with design. No consistent explanations were found for randomisation being associated with changes in effect sizes of policy interventions in field trials. CONCLUSIONS From the resampling studies we have no evidence that the absence of randomisation directly influences the effect size of policy interventions in a systematic way. At the level of individual studies, non-randomised trials may lead to different effect sizes, but this is unpredictable. Many of the examples reviewed and the new analyses in the current study reveal that randomisation is indeed associated with changes in effect sizes of policy interventions in field trials. Despite extensive analysis, we have identified no consistent explanations for these differences. Researchers mounting new evaluations need to avoid, wherever possible, allocation bias. New policy evaluations should adopt randomised designs wherever possible.

Risk factors for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: a systematic scoping review of multiple predictor studies

BACKGROUND The aetiology of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is still unknown. The identification of risk factors for CFS/ME is of great importance to practitioners. METHOD A systematic scoping review was conducted to locate studies that analysed risk factors for CFS/ME using multiple predictors. We searched for published and unpublished literature in 11 electronic databases, reference lists of retrieved articles and guideline stakeholder submissions in conjunction with the development of a forthcoming national UK guideline. Risk factors and findings were extracted in a concise tabular overview and studies synthesized narratively. RESULTS Eleven studies were identified that met inclusion criteria: two case-control studies, four cohort studies, three studies combining a cohort with a case-control study design, one case-control and twin study and one cross-sectional survey. The studies looked at a variety of demographic, medical, psychological, social and environmental factors to predict the development of CFS/ME. The existing body of evidence is characterized by factors that were analysed in several studies but without replication of a significant association in more than two studies, and by studies demonstrating significant associations of specific factors that were not assessed in other studies. None of the identified factors appear suitable for the timely identification of patients at risk of developing CFS/ME within clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS Various potential risk factors for the development of CFS/ME have been assessed but definitive evidence that appears meaningful for clinicians is lacking.

Interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis

The research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) published in a recent issue of Effective Health Care is reviewed.

Dimensions of lay health worker programmes: results of a scoping study and production of a descriptive framework

Background: Approaches that engage and support lay health workers in the delivery of health improvement activities have been widely applied across different health issues and populations. The lack of a common terminology, inconsistency in the use of role descriptors and poor indexing of lay health worker roles are all barriers to the development of a shared evidence base for lay health worker interventions. Objectives: The aim of the paper is to report results from a scoping study of approaches to involve lay people in public health roles and to present a framework for categorisation of the different dimensions of lay health worker programmes. Methods: Our scoping study comprised a systematic scoping review to map the literature on lay health worker interventions and to identify role dimensions and common models. The review, which was limited to interventions relevant to UK public health priorities, covered a total of 224 publications. The scoping study also drew on experiential evidence from UK practice. Results: Research-based and practice-based evidence confirmed the variety of role descriptors in use and the complexity of role dimensions. Five common models that define the primary role of the lay health worker were identified from the literature. A framework was later developed that grouped features of lay health worker programmes into four dimensions: intervention, role, professional support/service and the community. Discussion and conclusion: More account needs to be taken of the variations that occur between lay health worker programmes. This framework, with the mapping of key categories of difference, may enable better description of lay health worker programmes, which will in turn assist in building a shared evidence base. More research is needed to examine the transferability of the framework within different contexts.

Psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia

This paper summarises the research evidence presented in a recent issue of Effective Health Care on psychosocial interventions used in the management of schizophrenia.1 This is the second bulletin on the management of schizophrenia and, as with the previous issue on drug treatments,2 draws upon evidence from systematic reviews carried out by the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group.3 For schizophrenia, as with any potentially disabling illness, comprehensive care involves a combination of pharmacological treatments, the provision of ongoing support, valid information, and treatment or rehabilitative strategies. This review divides non-pharmacological interventions into three treatment strategies: (1) those that seek primarily to support or educate; (2) those that provide specific skills training; and (3) those that are problem or symptom focused. Most of the information contained in this bulletin has been extracted from Cochrane reviews. These reviews have been acknowledged in the recent National Service Framework for Mental Health as important sources of information for clinical decision making.4 As with the preceding bulletin on drug treatments,2 efforts have been made to present clinically meaningful data. For a more detailed discussion of each area the reader is referred to the original reviews which are regularly updated in the Cochrane Library.5 Unless stated otherwise, patients in the studies of non-pharmacological interventions are also being prescribed medication. Most of the trial participants were adults and no studies focused specifically on the care of adolescents or the elderly. ### SUPPORTIVE EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS Patients with schizophrenia and their carers should expect support and have a right to be well informed about the illness.6 Supportive educational packages aim to provide structure to what may otherwise be a haphazard process and can be implemented by any trained person.7 Support involves helping everyone to come to terms with a potentially stigmatising and disabling major mental illness, and …

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons

BackgroundPrisoners experience significantly worse health than the general population. This review examines the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer interventions in prison settings.MethodsA mixed methods systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, including qualitative and quantitative synthesis was conducted. In addition to grey literature identified and searches of websites, nineteen electronic databases were searched from 1985 to 2012.Study selection criteria were:Population: Prisoners resident in adult prisons and children resident in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs).Intervention: Peer-based interventions.Comparators: Review questions 3 and 4 compared peer and professionally led approaches.Outcomes: Prisoner health or determinants of health; organisational/process outcomes; views of prison populations.Study designs: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed method evaluations.ResultsFifty-seven studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours, and that peer support services are acceptable within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients, practically or emotionally. Consistent evidence from many, predominantly qualitative, studies, suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects. There was little evidence on cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions.ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health; peer support services are also an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO ref: CRD42012002349.