Main Article Content
patient engagement; nurse; oncology; randomized control trials; non-randomized control trials; systematic review.
Background and aim of the work. Due to the ageing of cancer patients, new approaches that require
a more active participation in the self-management of cancer treatment at home are needed. Nurses are strategic in improving the patient’s engagement capability in this regard. Knowing which interventions are more effective for the promotion of patient engagement could be useful to improve the effectiveness of the care provided. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review nursing interventions or programs that promote patient engagement in oncological nursing care and summarizing the main evidence related to their impact on relevant clinical and psychosocial outcomes. Method. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol based on Cochrane Handbook for the systematic review of interventions. We will search the most important electronic databases (PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science, Cochrane library) to find out which patient engagement interventions (active adult patient involvement) are implemented in oncological settings and understand what is the effectiveness of these interventions on the outcomes reported in the literature. The GRADE methodology will be used to synthetize the evidence. If possible, also a meta-analysis will be performed. We registered the study protocol on the PROSPERO database (N° CRD42020146189). Discussion and Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to address this clinical question in the field of oncology. This review will offer health professionals indications on the most frequently adopted patient engagement interventions and verify their clinical effectiveness. Furthermore, any gaps in the scientific literature will be highlighted.
2. Arndt V, Feller A, Hauri D, Heusser R, Junker C, Kuehni C, Lorez M, Roy E, Schindler M P V. I tumori in Svizzera, rapporto 2015. Situazione e sviluppi. Ufficio federale di statistica (UST), Vol. 14 (Salute). 2015.
3. Busse R, Blümel M. Tackling chronic disease in Europe: strategies, interventions and challenges. WHO Regional Office Europe; 2010.
4. Moynihan R, Blum K, Busse R, Schlette S. Health Policy Developments 13: Focus on Health Policy in Times of Crisis Competition and Regulation Evaluation in Health Care. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2010
5. Aronson JK. Compliance, concordance, adherence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63(4):383‐4.
6. Fennimore LA, Ginex PK. Oral Agents for Cancer Treatment: Effective Strategies to Assess and Enhance Medication Adherence. Nurs Clin North Am 2017;52(1):115–31.
7. Tolotti A, Pedrazzani C, Bonetti L, Bianchi M, Valcarenghi D. Patients’ and Nurses’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of an Oral Cancer Agent Education Process: A Mixed-Methods Study. Cancer Nurs 2020; [Epub ahead of print]
8. Castro EM, Van Regenmortel T, Vanhaecht K, Sermeus W, Van Hecke A. Patient empowerment, patient participation and patient-centeredness in hospital care: A concept analysis based on a literature review. Patient Educ Couns 2016;99(12):1923–39.
9. Eaton S, Roberts S, Turner B. Delivering person centred care in long term conditions. BMJ 2015;350:h181.
10. Graffigna G, Barello S. Patient engagement in healthcare: pathways for effective medical decision making. Neuropsychol Trends 2015;17:53–65.
11. Sherman RO, Hilton N. The patient engagement imperative. Am Nurse Today 2014;9(2):1–4.
12. Solomon MZ, Gusmano MK, Maschke KJ. The Ethical Imperative And Moral Challenges Of Engaging Patients And The Public With Evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016;35(4):583–9.
13. Weil AR. The Patient Engagement Imperative. Vol. 35, Health affairs (Project Hope). United States; 2016. 563.
14. Graffigna G, Barello S. Spotlight on the Patient Health Engagement model (PHE model): a psychosocial theory to understand people’s meaningful engagement in their own health care. Patient Prefer Adherence 2018;12:1261–71.
15. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32(2):207–14.
16. Mosen DM, Schmittdiel J, Hibbard J, Sobel D, Remmers C, Bellows J. Is patient activation associated with outcomes of care for adults with chronic conditions? J Ambul Care Manage 2007;30(1):21–9.
17. Remmers C, Hibbard J, Mosen DM, Wagenfield M, Hoye RE, Jones C. Is patient activation associated with future health outcomes and healthcare utilization among patients with diabetes? J Ambul Care Manage 2009;32(4):320–7.
18. Tobiano G, Bucknall T, Marshall A, Guinane J, Chaboyer W. Patients’ perceptions of participation in nursing care on medical wards. Scand J Caring Sci 2016;30(2):260–70.
19. Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, Lozza E. Measuring patient engagement: development and psychometric properties of the Patient Health Engagement (PHE) Scale. Front Psychol 2015;6:274.
20. Lammon CAB, Stanton MP, Blakney JL. Innovative partnerships: the clinical nurse leader role in diverse clinical settings. J Prof Nurs 2010;26(5):258–63.
21. Barello S, Graffigna G, Vegni E. Patient engagement as an emerging challenge for healthcare services: mapping the literature. Nurs Res Pract2012;2012:905934.
22. Lewis KB, Stacey D, Squires JE, Carroll S. Shared Decision-Making Models Acknowledging an Interprofessional Approach: A Theory Analysis to Inform Nursing Practice. Res Theory Nurs Pract 2016;30(1):26–43.
23. Spence Laschinger HK, Gilbert S, Smith LM, Leslie K. Towards a comprehensive theory of nurse/patient empowerment: applying Kanter’s empowerment theory to patient care. J Nurs Manag 2010;18(1):4–13.
24. Graffigna G, Barello S, Bonanomi A, Menichetti J. The Motivating Function of Healthcare Professional in eHealth and mHealth Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes Patients and the Mediating Role of Patient Engagement. J Diabetes Res 2016; 2016:2974521.
25. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647.
26. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol. 10, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. England; 2019. p. ED000142.
27. Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2016;10(Suppl 1):29–31.
28. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.
29. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, Balk EM, Kane R, McDonagh M, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68(11):1312–24.