European journal of cancer care · 2022
Patient preference attributes in eHealth interventions for cancer-related fatigue: A scoping review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beenhakker Lian, Witteveen Annemieke, Wijlens Kim A E, Siemerink Ester J M, van der Lee Marije L, Bode Christina, Siesling Sabine, Vollenbroek-Hutten Miriam M R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most reported long-term effects breast cancer patients experience after diagnosis. Many interventions for CRF are effective, however, not for every individual. Therefore, intervention advice should be adjusted to patients' preferences and characteristics. Our aim was to develop an overview of eHealth interventions and their (preference sensitive) attributes.
METHODS: eHealth interventions were identified using a scoping review approach. Eligible studies included breast cancer patients and assessed CRF as outcome. Interventions were categorised as physical activity, mind-body, psychological, 'other' or 'combination'. Information was extracted on various (preference sensitive) attributes, like duration, intensity, peer support and costs.
RESULTS: Thirty-five interventions were included and divided over the intervention categories. (Preference sensitive) attributes varied both within and between these categories. Duration varied from 4 weeks to 6 months, intensity from daily to own pace. Peer support was present in seven interventions and costs were known for six.
CONCLUSION: eHealth interventions exist in various categories, additionally, there is much variation in (preference sensitive) attributes. This provides opportunities to implement our overview for personalised treatment recommendations for breast cancer patients struggling with CRF. Taking into account patients' preferences and characteristics suits the complexity of CRF and heterogeneity of patients.
METHODS: eHealth interventions were identified using a scoping review approach. Eligible studies included breast cancer patients and assessed CRF as outcome. Interventions were categorised as physical activity, mind-body, psychological, 'other' or 'combination'. Information was extracted on various (preference sensitive) attributes, like duration, intensity, peer support and costs.
RESULTS: Thirty-five interventions were included and divided over the intervention categories. (Preference sensitive) attributes varied both within and between these categories. Duration varied from 4 weeks to 6 months, intensity from daily to own pace. Peer support was present in seven interventions and costs were known for six.
CONCLUSION: eHealth interventions exist in various categories, additionally, there is much variation in (preference sensitive) attributes. This provides opportunities to implement our overview for personalised treatment recommendations for breast cancer patients struggling with CRF. Taking into account patients' preferences and characteristics suits the complexity of CRF and heterogeneity of patients.