4.6 Review

Education to improve quality of life of people with chronic inflammatory skin conditions: a systematic review of the evidence

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 1228-1241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.14435

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme [13/11/01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patient and carer education has been proposed as a way of improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among people with chronic inflammatory skin conditions. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of education that specifically addresses HRQoL among people with chronic inflammatory skin conditions. We searched 12 literature databases and other sources (up to July 2014). Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the review inclusion criteria. Data from these RCTs were extracted and critically appraised. Two RCTs showed that for psoriasis in adults, group-based and text message education (as adjuncts to usual care) resulted in better HRQoL and disease severity outcomes than comparators, respectively. One RCT found that group-based education for children with eczema (atopic dermatitis) and their parents resulted in greater improvements in parents' HRQoL and in the children's disease severity than no education at 12 months. The remaining RCTs evaluated an educational session for psoriasis, a website for carers of children with eczema, information on skincare and makeup use given to women with acne, and an itch-coping programme for a range of conditions, all as adjuncts to usual care. None of these RCTs found statistically significant effects on HRQoL or disease severity compared with usual care. Common features of the effective interventions were long delivery (over 6 weeks to 3 months) and delivery by a multidisciplinary team. Overall, the evidence base is currently limited and generally has an unclear risk of bias. There is a need for more large RCTs evaluating piloted and theory-based interventions.

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

4.6
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