Background: Resilience is the ability to maintain or rapidly regain mental health during or after stressful life experiences. Cancer is a major risk factor for stressassociated mental illness. In this review, we attempt to identify effective resiliencepromoting interventions in adults with cancer. Methods: The analysis was restricted to randomized, controlled trials of resiliencepromoting interventions in adults with cancer in which training was provided for at least one psychosocial resilience factor. A selective search, with systematic components, for relevant publications was carried out in the PubMed and CENTRAL databases. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) were calculated wherever a fully reported dataset for resilience or post-traumatic growth was available. Results: Twenty-two trials with a total of 2,912 patients were included in the analysis; the intervention was provided in an individual setting in five trials and in group format in 17. Beneficial effects on resilience and post-traumatic growth, some of them large, were observed in patients who were acutely ill with cancer and after interventions that were provided in more than 12 sessions. The effect size ranged from g = 0.33 to g = 1.45. Largely beneficial effects were achieved by interventions based on the concepts of positive psychology, supportive-expressive group therapy, behavioral therapy, or mindfulness, with considerable variation in individual effect sizes. Conclusion: Interventions that promote resilience should be made available to interested and motivated cancer patients. These interventions should be provided, in parallel with somatic treatment, as soon as the diagnosis is made and should extend over more than 12 sessions whenever possible.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Delirium is a common neurobehavioral complication in hospitalized patients with a high prevalence in various clinical settings. Prevention of delirium is critical due to its common occurrence and associated poor outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multicomponent interventions in preventing incident delirium in hospitalized patients at risk. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We included a study if it was a randomized controlled trial and was evaluating effects of coordinated non-pharmacologic multicomponent interventions in the prevention of delirium. MEASUREMENTS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and CENTRAL (PROSPERO: CRD42019138981; last update May 24, 2019). We assessed the quality of included studies by using the criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration. We extracted the measured outcomes for delirium incidence, duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, falls during hospital stay, discharge to institutional care, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: In total, we screened 1,027 eligible records and included eight studies with 2,105 patients in the review. We found evidence of an effect (ie, reduction) of multicomponent interventions on the incidence of delirium (risk ratio = .53; 95% confidence interval = .41-.69; I 2 = 0). We detected no clear evidence of an effect for delirium duration, length of hospital stay, accidental falls, and mortality. Subgroup analyses did not result in findings of substantial effect modifiers, which can be explained by the high homogeneity within studies. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm the current guidelines that multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing delirium. Data are still lacking to reach evidence-based conclusions concerning potential benefits for hard outcomes such as length of hospital stay, return to independent living, and mortality.

To evaluate the cost-saving of a specialized, eHealth-based management service (CS) in comparison to regular medical care (RMC) for the management of patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy. Costs of hospitalization were derived via diagnosis-related groups which comprise diagnoses (ICD-10) and operation and procedure classification system (OPS), which resulted in OAC-related (i.e. bleeding/ thromboembolic events) and non-OAC-related costs for both cohorts. Cost for anticoagulation management comprised INR-testing, personnel, and technical support. In total, 705 patients were managed by CS and 1490 patients received RMC. The number of hospital stays was significantly lower in the CS cohort compared to RMC (CS: 23.4/100 py; RMC: 68.7/100 py); with the most pronounced difference in OAC-related admissions (CS: 2.8/100 py; RMC: 13.3/100 py). Total costs for anticoagulation management amounted to 101 EUR/py in RMC and 311 EUR/py in CS, whereas hospitalization costs were 3261 [IQR 2857–3689] EUR/py in RMC and 683 [504–874] EUR/py in CS. This resulted in an overall cost saving 2368 EUR/py favoring the CS. The lower frequency of adverse events in anticoagulated patients managed by the telemedicine-based CS compared to RMC translated into a substantial cost-saving, despite higher costs for the specialized management of patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, unique identifier NCT01809015, March 8, 2013.

No abstract

No abstract