Search

PurposeCurrent evidence supports the use of integrative oncology (IO) interventions in cancer supportive care. The demand for outpatient IO services in Hong Kong is expected to soar following the surge in cancer incidence due to population ageing. This study identified the factors influencing the delivery and utilisation of outpatient IO from local stakeholders’ perspectives and developed corresponding implementation strategies.MethodsThis study involved two sequential stages. First, with individual semi-structured interviews guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we explored stakeholders’ views on the barriers to and facilitators for implementing IO. Second, guided by a TDF-based qualitative data analysis of interview transcripts, we performed intervention mapping to develop Behaviour Change Wheel-based implementation strategies that may overcome the barriers and strengthen the facilitators.ResultsWe interviewed 31 stakeholders, including traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners (n = 8), biomedically-trained doctors (n = 7), nurses (n = 6), administrators (n = 4), caregivers (n = 4), and pharmacists (n = 2). The key local factors influencing outpatient IO are (1) lacking nursing and administrative workforce supporting IO service delivery, (2) lacking awareness of IO services among healthcare professionals, administrators, patients, and caregivers, and (3) lacking knowledge among healthcare professionals of herb–drug interaction and herbal toxicities.ConclusionWe recommended a multi-faceted implementation strategies package that included arranging funding to train, recruit, and retain nursing and administrative staff, devolving resources into promoting interprofessional collaborations and evidence on IO effectiveness and safety, integrating evidence on herb–drug interactions and herbal toxicities into automated electronic health record systems monitored by pharmacists with dual qualifications in TCM and conventional pharmacy.

Abstract Background Carefully conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nevertheless, the reliability of SR results can be limited by methodological flaws. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments, along with potentially relevant factors. Methods To identify eligible SRs on AD treatments, four databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 instrument was used for quality appraisal of SRs. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine factors related to methodological quality. Results A total of 102 SRs were appraised. Four (3.90%) SRs were considered as high quality; 14 (13.7%), 48 (47.1%), and 36 (35.3%) were as moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. The following significant methodological limitations were identified: only 22.5% of SRs registered protocols a priori, 6.9% discussed the rationales of chosen study designs, 21.6% gave a list of excluded studies with reasons, and 23.5% documented funding sources of primary studies. Cochrane SRs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 31.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.81–266.9) and SRs of pharmacological treatments (AOR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27–12.3) were related to the higher overall methodological quality of SRs. Conclusion Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory, especially among non-Cochrane SRs and SRs of non-pharmacological interventions. Improvement in the following methodological domains requires particular attention due to poor performance: registering and publishing protocols a priori, justifying study design selection, providing a list of excluded studies, and reporting funding sources of primary studies.

Abstract Background Prokinetic is the first-line conventional treatment for functional dyspepsia (FD) in Asia despite potential adverse events. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) may be an effective and safe substitution. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different CHM formulae for FD against prokinetics. Methods Seven international and Chinese databases were searched from their inception to July 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on CHM versus prokinetics. Data from each RCT were first pooled using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and illustrated as risk difference (RD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Random-effect NMAs were then performed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of CHM formulae and displayed as RD with 95% CI or SMD with 95% credible interval (CrI). The GRADE partially contextualised framework was applied for NMA result interpretation. Results Twenty-six unique CHM formulae were identified from twenty-eight RCTs of mediocre quality. Pairwise meta-analyses indicated that CHM was superior to prokinetics in alleviating global symptoms at 4-week follow-up (pooled RD: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.10–0.19), even after trim and fill adjustment for publication bias. NMAs demonstrated that Modified Zhi Zhu Decoction may have a moderate beneficial effect on alleviating global symptoms at 4-week follow-up (RD: 0.28; 95% CI: − 0.03 to 0.75). Xiao Pi Kuan Wei Decoction may have a large beneficial effect on alleviating postprandial fullness (SMD: − 2.14; 95% CI: − 2.76 to 0.70), early satiety (SMD: − 3.90; 95% CI: − 0.68 to − 0.42), and epigastric pain (SMD: − 1.23; 95% CI: − 1.66 to − 0.29). No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion Modified Zhi Zhu Decoction and Xiao Pi Kuan Wei Decoction may be considered as an alternative for patients unresponsive to prokinetics. Confirmatory head-to-head trials should be conducted to investigate their comparative effectiveness against prokinetics.

Background: An overview of systematic reviews(SRs) and network meta-analysis(NMA) were conducted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of peri-discharge complex interventions for reducing 30-day readmissions among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD) patients. Methods: Five databases were searched for SRs of randomized controlled trials(RCTs). An additional search was conducted for updated RCTs from database inception until Jun 2020. Pooled effect of peri-discharge complex interventions was assessed using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses. Comparative effectiveness across different peri-discharge complex interventions was evaluated using NMA. Results: Nine SRs and 11 eligible RCTs(n = 1,422) assessing eight different peri-discharge complex interventions were included. For reducing 30-day all-cause readmissions, pairwise meta-analysis showed no significant difference between peri-discharge complex interventions and usual care, while NMA indicated no significant differences among different peri-discharge complex interventions as well as usual care. For reducing 30-day COPD-related readmissions, peri-discharge complex interventions were significantly more effective than usual care (pooled RR = 0.45, 95% CI:0.24–0.84). Conclusions: Peri-discharge complex interventions may not differ from usual care in reducing 30-day all-cause readmissions among COPD patients but some are more effective for lowering 30-day COPD-related readmission. Thus, complex intervention comprising core components of patient education, self-management, patient-centred discharge instructions, and telephone follow up may be considered for implementation, but further evaluation is warranted.