Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015
Models of survivorship care provision in adult patients with haematological cancer: an integrative literature review.
Название 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.
Taylor K, Chan RJ, Monterosso L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of haematology cancer survivors warrants identification of the most effective model of survivorship care to survivors from a diverse range of haematological cancers with aggressive treatment regimens. This review aimed to identify models of survivorship care to support the needs of haematology cancer survivors.
METHOD: An integrative literature review method utilised a search of electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycArticles, and Cochrane Library) for eligible articles (up to July 2014). Articles were included if they proposed or reported the use of a model of care for haematology cancer survivors.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in this review. Eight articles proposed and described models of care, and six reported the use of a range of survivorship models of care in haematology cancer survivors. No randomised controlled trials or literature reviews were found to have been undertaken specifically with this cohort of cancer survivors. There was variation in the models described and who provided the survivorship care.
CONCLUSION: Due to the lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of models of care, it is difficult to determine the best model of care for haematology cancer survivors. Many different models of care are being put into practice before robust research is conducted. Therefore, well-designed high-quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials are required to inform clinical practice.
METHOD: An integrative literature review method utilised a search of electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycArticles, and Cochrane Library) for eligible articles (up to July 2014). Articles were included if they proposed or reported the use of a model of care for haematology cancer survivors.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included in this review. Eight articles proposed and described models of care, and six reported the use of a range of survivorship models of care in haematology cancer survivors. No randomised controlled trials or literature reviews were found to have been undertaken specifically with this cohort of cancer survivors. There was variation in the models described and who provided the survivorship care.
CONCLUSION: Due to the lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of models of care, it is difficult to determine the best model of care for haematology cancer survivors. Many different models of care are being put into practice before robust research is conducted. Therefore, well-designed high-quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials are required to inform clinical practice.