PurposeUnmanaged distress has been shown to adversely affect survival and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Fortunately, distress can be managed and even prevented with appropriate evidence-based interventions. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the published literature around predictors of distress in female breast cancer survivors to help guide targeted intervention to prevent distress.MethodsRelevant studies were located by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases. Significance and directionality of associations for commonly assessed candidate predictors (n ≥ 5) and predictors shown to be significant (p ≤ 0.05) by at least two studies were summarized descriptively. Predictors were evaluated based on the proportion of studies that showed a significant and positive association with the presence of distress.ResultsForty-two studies met the target criteria and were included in the review. Breast cancer and treatment-related predictors were more advanced cancer at diagnosis, treatment with chemotherapy, longer primary treatment duration, more recent transition into survivorship, and breast cancer recurrence. Manageable treatment-related symptoms associated with distress included menopausal/vasomotor symptoms, pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance. Sociodemographic characteristics that increased the risk of distress were younger age, non-Caucasian ethnicity, being unmarried, and lower socioeconomic status. Comorbidities, history of mental health problems, and perceived functioning limitations were also associated. Modifiable predictors of distress were lower physical activity, lower social support, and cigarette smoking.ConclusionsThis review established a set of evidence-based predictors that can be used to help identify women at higher risk of experiencing distress following completion of primary breast cancer treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4290-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPatient information and education, such as decision aids, are gradually moving toward online, computer-based environments. Considerable research has been conducted to guide content and presentation of decision aids. However, given the relatively new shift to computer-based support, little attention has been given to how multimedia and interactivity can improve upon paper-based decision aids.ObjectiveThe first objective of this review was to summarize published literature into a proposed classification of features that have been integrated into computer-based decision aids. Building on this classification, the second objective was to assess whether integration of specific features was associated with higher-quality decision making.MethodsRelevant studies were located by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. The review identified studies that evaluated computer-based decision aids for adults faced with preference-sensitive medical decisions and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. A thematic synthesis was conducted to develop the classification of features. Subsequently, meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported knowledge or decisional conflict. Further subgroup analyses compared pooled SMDs for decision aids that incorporated a specific feature to other computer-based decision aids that did not incorporate the feature, to assess whether specific features improved quality of decision making.ResultsOf 3541 unique publications, 58 studies met the target criteria and were included in the thematic synthesis. The synthesis identified six features: content control, tailoring, patient narratives, explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support. A subset of 26 RCTs from the thematic synthesis was used to conduct the meta-analyses. As expected, computer-based decision aids performed better than usual care or alternative aids; however, some features performed better than others. Integration of content control improved quality of decision making (SMD 0.59 vs 0.23 for knowledge; SMD 0.39 vs 0.29 for decisional conflict). In contrast, tailoring reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.40 vs 0.71 for knowledge; SMD 0.25 vs 0.52 for decisional conflict). Similarly, patient narratives also reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.43 vs 0.65 for knowledge; SMD 0.17 vs 0.46 for decisional conflict). Results were varied for different types of explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support.ConclusionsIntegration of media rich or interactive features into computer-based decision aids can improve quality of preference-sensitive decision making. However, this is an emerging field with limited evidence to guide use. The systematic review and thematic synthesis identified features that have been integrated into available computer-based decision aids, in an effort to facilitate reporting of these features and to promote integration of such features into decision aids. The meta-analyses and ...

BackgroundMedication reconciliation at admission, transfer and discharge has been designated as a required hospital practice to reduce adverse drug events. However, implementation challenges have resulted in poor hospital adherence. The aim of this study was to assess the processes required to carry out medication reconciliation: the health professionals involved, the tasks and time devoted to medication reconciliation in general hospital settings.MethodsA time-and-motion study design was used. Using a systematic sample of patients admitted and discharged from geriatric, medical and surgical units in two academic centers, health professionals involved in medication reconciliation were observed and timed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the number of professionals involved, tasks performed, and mean time devoted.ResultsUp to 3 professionals from 2 disciplines (medicine and pharmacy) were involved in the medication reconciliation process. Geriatric reconciliations took the most time to complete at admission (mean: 92.2 minutes (SD = 44.3)) and discharge (mean: 29.0 minutes (SD = 23.8)), followed by internal medicine at admission (mean: 46.2 minutes (SD = 21.1)) and 19.4 (SD = 11.7) minutes at discharge) and general surgery minutes at discharge (mean: 9.9 minutes (SD = 18.2)). Considerable differences in order, type and number of tasks performed were noted between and within units. Tasks independent of direct patient interaction took more than twice the time required to complete than tasks requiring patient interaction.ConclusionLack of coordination, specialized training and agreement on the roles and responsibilities of professionals are among the most probable reasons for work-flow inefficiencies, possibly variability in quality, and time required for the current medication reconciliation process. A better understanding of the admission processes in general surgery is required. Standardization and use of electronic tools could improve efficiency and hospital adherence.

Key PointsQuestionDoes an electronic medication reconciliation tool reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events and other adverse outcomes in the 30 days after discharge?FindingsIn this cluster randomized trial that included 3491 patients discharged from 2 medical units and 2 surgical units of 1 academic hospital, electronic medication reconciliation reduced medication discrepancies but had no effect on adverse drug events (primary outcome), emergency department visits, or readmission in the 30 days after discharge.MeaningHospital accreditation requirements for medication reconciliation should be revised to focus on interventions that will reduce the risk of adverse events for patients with multiple changes to their community medication.