4.5 Review

Patient education programs for cancer-related fatigue: A systematic review

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 98, 期 11, 页码 1308-1319

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.003

关键词

Cancer-related fatigue; Patient education; Symptom management; Systematic review

资金

  1. Youth Fund of Humanities and Social Science Foundation, Ministry of Education, China [14YJCZH024]
  2. Social Science Research Project in Institutions of Higher Education, Jiangsu Province [2014SJD140]
  3. Youth Natural Science Fund of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine [13XZR31]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the effect of patient education programs on cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Methods: A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Elsevier, and CINAHL through April 2014. Two reviewers selected trials, conducted critical appraisals, and extracted data. No meta-analysis was performed. Effect sizes (ESs) of CRF reduction and related outcomes were calculated. Results: Ten trials involving 1534 adults with cancer were identified and the methodological quality was generally fair. The results showed that the included RCTs showed inconsistent effects of patient education programs on CRF reduction. Different effects on CRF-related outcomes were found. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Our study has provided limited support for the clinical use of patient education programs to reduce CRF. Yet patient education programs appear to play some positive role in managing CRF. Some elements, such as exercise, sleep hygiene, nutrition and relaxation, are possible beneficial approaches. More rigorous experimental studies are warranted and should be more explicitly characterized, in order to be reproducible and assessed. Practice implications: As a safe modality, patient education program can be considered as a potentially useful approach for reducing CRF. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据