Search

While effective general practitioner (GP)-patient communication is required for the provision of good palliative care, barriers and facilitators for this communication are largely unknown. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for GP-patient communication in palliative care. In a systematic review seven computerized databases were searched to find empirical studies on GP-patient communication in palliative care. Fifteen qualitative studies and seven quantitative questionnaire studies were included. The main perceived barriers were GPs' lack of availability, and patients' and GPs' ambivalence to discuss 'bad prognosis'. Main perceived facilitators were GPs being available, initiating discussion about several end-of-life issues and anticipating various scenarios. Lack of availability and failure to discuss former mistakes appear to be blind spots of GPs. GPs should be more forthcoming to initiate discussions with palliative care patients about prognosis and end-of-life issues. Empirical studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of the perceived barriers and facilitators.

While effective general practitioner (GP)-patient communication is required for the provision of good palliative care, barriers and facilitators for this communication are largely unknown. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for GP-patient communication in palliative care. In a systematic review seven computerized databases were searched to find empirical studies on GP-patient communication in palliative care. Fifteen qualitative studies and seven quantitative questionnaire studies were included. The main perceived barriers were GPs' lack of availability, and patients' and GPs' ambivalence to discuss 'bad prognosis'. Main perceived facilitators were GPs being available, initiating discussion about several end-of-life issues and anticipating various scenarios. Lack of availability and failure to discuss former mistakes appear to be blind spots of GPs. GPs should be more forthcoming to initiate discussions with palliative care patients about prognosis and end-of-life issues. Empirical studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of the perceived barriers and facilitators.

Context Emerging evidence suggests that sedentary behavior (i.e., time spent sitting) may be negatively associated with health. The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on associations between occupational sitting and health risks. Evidence acquisition Studies were identified in MarchApril 2009 by literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PEDro, with subsequent related-article searches in PubMed and citation searches in Web of Science. Identified studies were categorized by health outcome. Two independent reviewers assessed methodologic quality using a 15-item quality rating list (score range 015 points, higher score indicating better quality). Data on study design, study population, measures of occupational sitting, health risks, analyses, and results were extracted. Evidence synthesis 43 papers met the inclusion criteria (21% cross-sectional, 14% casecontrol, 65% prospective); they examined the associations between occupational sitting and BMI (n=12); cancer (n=17); cardiovascular disease (CVD, n=8); diabetes mellitus (DM, n=4); and mortality (n=6). The median study-quality score was 12 points. Half the cross-sectional studies showed a positive association between occupational sitting and BMI, but prospective studies failed to confirm a causal relationship. There was some casecontrol evidence for a positive association between occupational sitting and cancer; however, this was generally not supported by prospective studies. The majority of prospective studies found that occupational sitting was associated with a higher risk of DM and mortality. Conclusions Limited evidence was found to support a positive relationship between occupational sitting and health risks. The heterogeneity of study designs, measures, and findings makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions at this time. © 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting. Methods: Studies published up to April 2009 were identified by literature searches in multiple databases. Studies were included if they were interventions to increase energy expenditure (increase physical activity or decrease sitting); were conducted in a workplace setting; and specifically measured sitting as a primary or secondary outcome. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological quality of the included studies, and data on study design, sample, measures of sitting, intervention and results were extracted. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria (five randomised trials and one pre-post study). The primary aim of all six was to increase physical activity; all had reducing sitting as a secondary aim. All used self-report measures of sitting; one specifically assessed occupational sitting time; the others used measures of general sitting. No studies showed that sitting decreased significantly in the intervention group, compared with a control or comparison group. Conclusion: Currently, there is a dearth of evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting. In light of the growing body of evidence that prolonged sitting is negatively associated with health, this highlights a gap in the scientific literature that needs to be addressed. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.

A systematic review of measurement properties of health-status instruments is a tool for evaluating the quality of instruments. Our aim was to appraise the quality of the review process, to describe how authors assess the methodological quality of primary studies of measurement properties, and to describe how authors evaluate results of the studies. Literature searches were performed in three databases. One hundred and forty-eight reviews were included. The purpose of included reviews was to identify health status instruments used in an evaluative application and to report on the measurement properties of these instruments. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. Reviews were often of low quality: 22% of the reviews used one database, the search strategy was often poorly described, and in many cases it was not reported whether article selection (75%) and data extraction (71%) was done by two independent reviewers. In 11 reviews the methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated for all measurement properties, and of these 11 reviews only 7 evaluated the results. Methods to evaluate the quality of the primary studies and the results differed widely. The poor quality of reviews hampers evidence-based selection of instruments. Guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of measurement properties should be developed. © 2009 The Author(s).

A systematic review of measurement properties of health-status instruments is a tool for evaluating the quality of instruments. Our aim was to appraise the quality of the review process, to describe how authors assess the methodological quality of primary studies of measurement properties, and to describe how authors evaluate results of the studies. Literature searches were performed in three databases. One hundred and forty-eight reviews were included. The purpose of included reviews was to identify health status instruments used in an evaluative application and to report on the measurement properties of these instruments. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. Reviews were often of low quality: 22% of the reviews used one database, the search strategy was often poorly described, and in many cases it was not reported whether article selection (75%) and data extraction (71%) was done by two independent reviewers. In 11 reviews the methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated for all measurement properties, and of these 11 reviews only 7 evaluated the results. Methods to evaluate the quality of the primary studies and the results differed widely. The poor quality of reviews hampers evidence-based selection of instruments. Guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of measurement properties should be developed. © 2009 The Author(s).

Contains fulltext : 70895.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Postoperative recovery is a considerable issue in studies comparing operative techniques of similar effectiveness. In recent years, a shift has occurred toward patient-centered study outcomes such as quality-of-life questionnaires. The objective of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on general postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments and their measurement properties. METHODS: We searched the databases EMBASE.com, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and PubMed for articles reporting on postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. A checklist was used to assess the revealed studies and instruments. Existing quality criteria were applied to the measurement properties to compare the instruments. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 620 studies, of which 18 studies reported on 12 different postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. None of the instruments had been validated completely in line with the 8 quality criteria, which were used to assess the measurement properties. Two instruments were clearly superior, which were the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40. CONCLUSIONS: No fully validated instrument is available for the assessment of general postoperative recovery. We advise to use the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40 in future validation and application studies on short-term postoperative recovery.

Contains fulltext : 70895.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Postoperative recovery is a considerable issue in studies comparing operative techniques of similar effectiveness. In recent years, a shift has occurred toward patient-centered study outcomes such as quality-of-life questionnaires. The objective of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on general postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments and their measurement properties. METHODS: We searched the databases EMBASE.com, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and PubMed for articles reporting on postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. A checklist was used to assess the revealed studies and instruments. Existing quality criteria were applied to the measurement properties to compare the instruments. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 620 studies, of which 18 studies reported on 12 different postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. None of the instruments had been validated completely in line with the 8 quality criteria, which were used to assess the measurement properties. Two instruments were clearly superior, which were the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40. CONCLUSIONS: No fully validated instrument is available for the assessment of general postoperative recovery. We advise to use the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40 in future validation and application studies on short-term postoperative recovery.

Contains fulltext : 70895.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Postoperative recovery is a considerable issue in studies comparing operative techniques of similar effectiveness. In recent years, a shift has occurred toward patient-centered study outcomes such as quality-of-life questionnaires. The objective of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on general postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments and their measurement properties. METHODS: We searched the databases EMBASE.com, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and PubMed for articles reporting on postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. A checklist was used to assess the revealed studies and instruments. Existing quality criteria were applied to the measurement properties to compare the instruments. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 620 studies, of which 18 studies reported on 12 different postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. None of the instruments had been validated completely in line with the 8 quality criteria, which were used to assess the measurement properties. Two instruments were clearly superior, which were the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40. CONCLUSIONS: No fully validated instrument is available for the assessment of general postoperative recovery. We advise to use the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40 in future validation and application studies on short-term postoperative recovery.

Background and Purpose - Cervical artery dissection (CAD) is a recognized cause of ischemic stroke among young and middle-aged individuals. The pathogenesis of dissections is unknown, although numerous constitutional and environmental risk factors have been postulated. To better understand the quality and nature of the research on the pathogenesis of CAD, we performed a systematic review of its risk factors. Methods - PubMed [MEDLINE (1966 to February 22, 2005)] and Embase (1980 to February 22, 2005) were searched to identify studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality of the primary studies. Relevant data were extracted, including the risk factor(s) investigated, characteristics of the study population, and strength of the association(s). Results - Thirty-one case-control studies were included for analysis. Selection bias, lack of control for confounding, and inadequate method of data analysis were the most common identified methodological shortcomings. Strong associations were reported from individual studies for the following risk factors: aortic root diameter >34 mm (odds ratio [OR = 14.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 63.6), migraine (OR

Background and Purpose - Cervical artery dissection (CAD) is a recognized cause of ischemic stroke among young and middle-aged individuals. The pathogenesis of dissections is unknown, although numerous constitutional and environmental risk factors have been postulated. To better understand the quality and nature of the research on the pathogenesis of CAD, we performed a systematic review of its risk factors. Methods - PubMed [MEDLINE (1966 to February 22, 2005)] and Embase (1980 to February 22, 2005) were searched to identify studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality of the primary studies. Relevant data were extracted, including the risk factor(s) investigated, characteristics of the study population, and strength of the association(s). Results - Thirty-one case-control studies were included for analysis. Selection bias, lack of control for confounding, and inadequate method of data analysis were the most common identified methodological shortcomings. Strong associations were reported from individual studies for the following risk factors: aortic root diameter >34 mm (odds ratio [OR = 14.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 63.6), migraine (OR