Information Needs of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer and Their Supports in Relation to Treatment Management Choices: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Advances in research and modes of information delivery provide new opportunities to access medical information. Despite this, patient information needs on head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment are not sufficiently met. Objective: The aim is to investigate (1) information content required for patients with HNC and their caregivers to support confident decisions about their treatment, (2) information needs by role (eg, patient and caregiver), and (3) the preferred format or mode of information delivery. Results will be used to inform the development and testing of a decision aid for this patient population. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al frameworks. The search was carried out in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and limited to the English language between 2012 and the search date of September 20, 2022. Studies were dual-screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, central to which was a focus on information needs within the context of decision-making. Data were extracted from the articles using prespecified criteria into a data extraction sheet that was pilot-tested and refined prior to its application. Reporting followed the research questions and was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Results: A total of 10,495 publications were identified, with 30 articles suitable for data extraction. High information needs included details of the diagnosis (3/30, 10%), purpose (6/30, 20%), and risks (10/30, 33%) of medical procedures; strategies for eating and speaking during and after treatment (6/30, 20%); lifestyle guidelines for survivorship (4/30, 13%); and facts about the human papillomavirus (2/30, 7%). Moderate information needs included the physical (10/30, 33%) and psychological (17/30, 57%) domains of posttreatment, treatment options (6/30, 20%), strategies to improve communication with health care providers (8/30, 27%), and nutrition (8/30, 27%). Information needs of patients with HNC and their caregivers evolved through the phases of treatment, highlighting the need for relevant information to support collaborative decision-making with their health care providers. Caregiver needs were underrepresented (5/30, 17%), but more information on stress reduction strategies for the patient, how to play a role in treatment decisions, and where to obtain the best medical care for the patient was identified. The preferred mode of delivery for information varied and reflected the age, gender, and country of the sample populations. Conclusions: Information needs of patients with HNC and their caregivers are not being met to a satisfactory level, evidenced by the breadth of outstanding needs. Health care providers must consider evolving patient and caregiver information needs, addressing concerns on an individual basis to support shared decision-making. Tools are needed to support information delivery that is acceptable to patients and caregivers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».