Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intervenciones de información para orientar a los pacientes y a sus cuidadores sobre los centros de atención del cáncer

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008273.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 07 December 2011see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Raymond J Chan

    Correspondence to: Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

    [email protected]

    Research Centre for Clinical Practice Innovation, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia

    School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

  • Joan Webster

    School of Nursing & Midwifery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia

    NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

  • Louise Marquart

    Statistics Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia

Contributions of authors

Writing the protocol: RC, JW
Developing the search strategy: RC
Searching for trials: RC
Selecting trials: RC, JW
Data entry: RC, JW
Analysis: RC, JW, LM
Interpreting analysis: RC, JW, LM
Drafting final review: RC, JW, LM
Updating the review: RC

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH), Australia.

    Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (RBWH) provided salary and facilities to RC and JW to conduct this systematic review.

  • Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR), Australia.

    Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR) provided salary and facilities to LM to conduct this systematic review.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None known

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all those who have commented on the review. In particular, we would like to thank Nancy Santesso (Review Editor), Megan Prictor (Managing Editor), Sophie Hill (Coordinating Editor), John Kis‐Rigo (Trials Search Coordinator), Rebecca Ryan (Research Fellow) and the editors and peer reviewers of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2011 Dec 07

Information interventions for orienting patients and their carers to cancer care facilities

Review

Raymond J Chan, Joan Webster, Louise Marquart

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008273.pub2

2010 Jan 20

Information interventions for orienting patients and their carers to cancer care facilities

Protocol

Raymond Chan, Joan Webster, Jenny Hall

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008273

Differences between protocol and review

Electronic searches

The protocol stated that the Current Contents ISI and Web of Science ISI would be searched, but we did not search these for the review. The review authors believe that it would not add further studies to the identified titles.

Authorship

The protocol stated that the decision to carry out meta‐analyses were to be made by consensus of RC and JW. However, an additional author (LM) joined the review team at the review stage. Therefore, the decision to carry out meta‐analyses were made by consensus of RC, JW and LM.

Measures of treatment effect

For individual trials, for dichotomous (binary) outcomes, we planned to report odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes with different scales of measurement across trials, we planned to report standardised mean differences (SMDs), each with its 95% CI. In this review, we did not report on any dichotomous outcomes or continuous outcomes with different scales of measurement across trials.

Data synthesis

If there were sufficient, appropriate studies, they were to have been categorised based on study design, type of intervention or whether the intervention was aimed at patients or carers. Within these categories, the results were to have been further structured to reflect the comparisons detailed in the Types of interventions sections (i.e. mode of delivery). We also planned to present separately the results of studies that compared the intervention to no intervention, then those that compared the intervention to other forms of orientation intervention (e.g. face to face versus audio/visual) and those that compared two or more types of mode (e.g. written materials and video; written material and face to face). However, we did not carry out these procedures due to insufficient studies/data.

If cluster randomised trials were included, we would have accounted for the effects of clustering by adjusting each trial to its 'effective sample size’ using intra‐class coefficients where available, or external estimates from similar studies. However, there were no cluster randomised trials identified in this review.

Unit of analysis issues  

There were no unit of analysis issues.

Sensitivity analysis

We planned to restrict the primary analysis to studies which were considered as having a low risk of bias (i.e. those receiving a 'Yes' rating for the criteria of sequence generation and allocation concealment).

We planned to perform sensitivity analyses where appropriate in order to explore the influence of the following factors on effect size:
• excluding unpublished studies;
• excluding any large studies to establish how they impact on the results;
• excluding studies using the following filters: criteria used for clinical diagnosis and eligibility for intervention,
language of publication, country;
• the length of the interval between registration to the service and delivery of the intervention; and between delivery of the intervention and measurement of the effect.

We also planned to test the robustness of the results by repeating the analysis using different measures of effect size (risk difference, odds ratio etc.) and different statistical models (fixed‐effect and random‐effects models), as appropriate.

However, there were too few studies to perform these analyses.

Dealing with missing data  

If some outcome data remained missing despite our attempts to obtain complete outcome data from authors, we would have performed an available‐case analysis, based on the numbers of patients for whom outcome data were known. If standard deviations were missing, we would have imputed them from other studies, or where possible, computed them from standard errors using the formula SD=SE x √‾N, where these were available (Higgins 2008). We also planned to report on levels of drop outs in the intervention and comparison groups as an indicator of 'acceptability' of the intervention, and as a potential source of bias.

Assessment of reporting biases  

Reporting bias was to have been assessed using guidelines in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2008). However, there were not enough studies available to do a meaningful assessment of publication bias.

Notes

N/A