Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009500Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 07 diciembre 2011see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Consumidores y comunicación

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Dell Horey

    Correspondencia a: Office of Associate Dean (Research), Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Annette F. Street

    Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia

  • Margaret O'Connor

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

  • Louise Peters

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

  • Susan Lee

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Contributions of authors

The review was conceived by all review authors, who also all contributed to its preliminary design. The protocol was planned and written by DH, with contributions from AS. LP designed the original search strategy. All authors will be involved in aspects of the search. MO'C and SL will be responsible for searching the grey literature. DH and AS will screen all titles and abstracts and AS will collate all retrieved papers. DH and LP will independently apply inclusion criteria, extract data and assess the risk of bias for each included study. All authors will resolve any discrepancies in data extraction and risk of bias assessment. DH will be responsible for data analysis and writing the review. All authors will contribute to data interpretation and the development of the review's conclusions.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University, Australia.

    Salaries

  • Palliative Care Research Team, Monash University, Australia.

    Salaries

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None known

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the staff and editors of the Consumers and Communication Review Group for their advice and assistance in the preparation of this protocol and peer reviewers and palliative volunteer coordinators, Ms Stacey Heer and Ms Barb Young, for their feedback on a draft of this protocol.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Jul 20

Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings

Review

Dell Horey, Annette F Street, Margaret O'Connor, Louise Peters, Susan F Lee

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009500.pub2

2011 Dec 07

Training and supportive programs for palliative care volunteers in community settings

Protocol

Dell Horey, Annette F. Street, Margaret O'Connor, Louise Peters, Susan Lee

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009500

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Table 1. Effect estimators for dichotomous outcomes from RCTs, cluster‐RCTs, quasi‐RCTs and CBAs

Dichotomous outcomes

Relative risk*

RR=RPost,I/RPost, C

Relative risk adjusted for baseline*

RRAdj=(RPost,I/RPost, C)/(RPre,I/RPre, C)

Where RPost,I and RPost, C are defined above, and RPre,I and RPre, C are the respective risk of the outcome in the intervention and comparator groups pre‐intervention.

Risk difference*

RD=RPost,I ‐ RPost, C where RPost,I and RPost, C are defined as above.

RPost,I= risk of the outcome in the post‐intervention group.

RPost, C =risk of the outcome in the comparator group post intervention.

RPre,I is the risk of the outcome in the intervention group pre‐intervention.

RPre, C is the risk of the outcome in the comparator groups pre‐intervention.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Effect estimators for dichotomous outcomes from RCTs, cluster‐RCTs, quasi‐RCTs and CBAs
Table 2. Effect estimators for continuous outcomes from RCTs, cluster RCTs, quasi‐RCTs and CBAs

Continuous outcomes

Standardised mean difference*

SMD=(Mean Post,I Mean Post,C )/SD Pre,pooled

Relative percentage change post intervention*

RPC=((Mean Post,I Mean Post,C )/Mean Post,C )X100

Difference in means post‐intervention*

DM=(Mean Post,I Mean Post,C )

Difference in mean change*

DMC=(Mean Post,I Mean Post,C )‐(Mean Pret,I Mean Pre,C )

*Mean Post,I is mean of post‐intervention groups.

Mean Post,C is mean of post‐comparator groups.

SD Pre,pooled is the pooled standard deviation of the two groups pre‐intervention.

Mean Pret,I is mean of pre‐intervention groups.

Mean Pre,C is mean of pre‐comparator groups.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Effect estimators for continuous outcomes from RCTs, cluster RCTs, quasi‐RCTs and CBAs