2018
DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12931
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Holistic needs assessment in brain cancer patients: A systematic review of available tools

Abstract: This systematic review describes tools which could be considered for use for holistic needs assessment (HNA) in brain cancer. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO were searched. Studies were included which met the following criteria; primary research published in English which reported the development, psychometric testing or clinical utility testing of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the assessment of adult brain cancer patients’ needs, problems… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An optimal measurement tool should provide sufficient face validity, be easily understood, be of an acceptable length to complete, be sensitive to differences between individuals as well as within individuals over time and be reliable with minimal random error (N. C. Campbell et al, 2007; Rychetnik et al, 2002). Supporting the conclusions of recent reviews, our findings suggest tools with these qualities are currently lacking in neuro‐oncology (Afseth et al, 2019). Robust tools are critical for ensuring accuracy of assumptions about the prevalence, severity and interactions of outcomes identified in descriptive research, and in determining the effectiveness of treatments or interventions for those impacted by brain cancer (Campbell et al, 2007; Paul et al, 2013; Rychetnik et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…An optimal measurement tool should provide sufficient face validity, be easily understood, be of an acceptable length to complete, be sensitive to differences between individuals as well as within individuals over time and be reliable with minimal random error (N. C. Campbell et al, 2007; Rychetnik et al, 2002). Supporting the conclusions of recent reviews, our findings suggest tools with these qualities are currently lacking in neuro‐oncology (Afseth et al, 2019). Robust tools are critical for ensuring accuracy of assumptions about the prevalence, severity and interactions of outcomes identified in descriptive research, and in determining the effectiveness of treatments or interventions for those impacted by brain cancer (Campbell et al, 2007; Paul et al, 2013; Rychetnik et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Previous systematic reviews have synthesised the literature in the previous decade (e.g Ford et al, 2012; Sterckx et al, 2013). Others have focused on quality of assessment tools (Afseth et al, 2019), the impact of interventions for specific domains such as information needs (Diamond et al, 2014; Langbecker & Janda, 2015), or phases of care, such as palliative phase and the end of life (Byrne et al, 2019; Walbert & Khan, 2014). However, the volume, type and quality of psychosocial research output in brain cancer are yet to be explored.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Appropriate coping with UI, which results from various factors, ultimately allows patients to adapt positively to their disease 14 . However, most studies on UI or coping among patients with PMBT were exploratory studies that only partially investigated patients’ experiences, analyzing few variables, such as resilience or health-related quality of life 7,21 . This study aimed to identify the factors affecting UI and cancer coping among patients with PMBT using Mishel’s Model of Uncertainty in Illness and Wright and colleagues’ Model of Illness Uncertainty 11,12,14 …”
Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It gives rise to a number of physical, psychological and social needs in patients that can impact their quality of life [ 3 , 4 ] after diagnosis and persist beyond the end of treatment [ 5 ]. Moreover, to best understand the needs of these patients, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, PREMs) is now widely recognised in the literature [ 6 , 7 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%