Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of the complementary therapies in the management of cancer pain in palliative care: A systematic review* Translated title: Eficácia das terapias complementares no manejo da dor oncológica em cuidados paliativos: revisão sistemática Translated title: Eficacia de las terapias complementarias en el manejo del dolor oncológico en los cuidados paliativos: revisión sistemática

      review-article
      1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2
      Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
      Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo
      Complementary Therapies, Adult, Cancer Pain, Palliative Care, Oncology Nursing, Evidence-Based Nursing, Terapias Complementares, Adulto, Dor do Câncer, Cuidados Paliativos, Enfermagem Oncológica, Enfermagem Baseada em Evidências, Terapias Complementarias, Adulto, Dolor en Cáncer, Cuidados Paliativos, Enfermería Oncológica, Enfermería Basada en la Evidencia

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          to synthesize the knowledge and to critically evaluate the evidences arising from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of the complementary therapies in the management of cancer pain in adult patients with cancer in palliative care.

          Method:

          a systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The search for articles in the MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, CENTRAL Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases, as well as the manual search, selection of studies, data extraction, and methodological assessment using the Cochrane Bias Risk tool were performed independently by two reviewers.

          Results:

          eight hundred and fifteen (815) studies were identified, six of them being selected and analyzed, of which three used massage therapy, one study used a combination of progressive muscle relaxation and guided imaging, and another two studies used acupuncture. Most of the studies had an uncertain risk of bias (n=4; 67%).

          Conclusion:

          while the evidence from the studies evaluating the use of massage therapy or the use of progressive muscle relaxation and guided imaging for the management of cancer pain in these patients demonstrated significant benefits, the other two studies that evaluated the use of acupuncture as a complementary therapy showed contradictory results, therefore, needing more research studies to elucidate such findings.

          Translated abstract

          Objetivo:

          sintetizar o conhecimento e avaliar criticamente as evidências provenientes de ensaios clínicos controlados randomizados sobre a eficácia das terapias complementares no manejo da dor oncológica em pacientes adultos com câncer em cuidados paliativos.

          Método:

          revisão sistemática guiada pelo Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A busca dos artigos nas bases de dados MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, CENTRAL Cochrane e PsycINFO, bem como a busca manual, seleção dos estudos, extração dos dados e avaliação metodológica pela ferramenta do Risco de Viés da Cochrane foram realizadas por dois revisores de forma independente.

          Resultados:

          foram identificados 815 estudos, sendo seis selecionados e analisados, dos quais três utilizaram a massagem terapêutica, um estudo usou uma combinação de relaxamento muscular progressivo e imagem guiada, e outros dois estudos a acupuntura. A maioria dos estudos apresentou risco de viés incerto (n=4; 67%).

          Conclusão:

          enquanto as evidências dos estudos que avaliaram o uso da massagem terapêutica ou o uso de relaxamento muscular progressivo e imagem guiada para manejo da dor oncológica nesses pacientes mostraram benefícios significativos, os outros dois estudos que avaliaram o uso da acupuntura como terapia complementar exibiram resultados divergentes, necessitando, portanto, de mais pesquisas para elucidar tais achados.

          Translated abstract

          Objetivo:

          sintetizar conocimiento y realizar el análisis crítico de las evidencias procedentes de ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorios sobre la eficacia de las terapias complementarias en el manejo del dolor oncológico en pacientes adultos con cáncer en cuidados paliativos.

          Método:

          revisión sistemática guiada por el Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. La búsqueda de artículos en las bases de datos MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, CENTRAL Cochrane y PsycINFO, así como la búsqueda manual, selección de estudios, extracción de datos y evaluación metodológica con la utilización de la herramienta Riesgo de Sesgo de Cochrane se realizaron por dos revisores de forma independiente.

          Resultados:

          se identificaron 815 estudios, de los cuales, seis fueron seleccionados y analizados, siendo que tres utilizaron masaje terapéutico, un estudio utilizó una combinación de relajación muscular progresiva e imagen guiada, y otros dos estudios la acupuntura. La mayor parte de los estudios presentaron riesgo de sesgo incierto (n=4; 67%)

          Conclusión:

          mientras las evidencias de los estudios que evalúan el uso de la del masaje terapéutico o el uso de la relajación muscular progresiva y las imágenes guiadas para el manejo del dolor oncológico en estos pacientes demostraron beneficios significativos, los otros dos estudios que evaluaron el uso de la acupuntura como terapia complementaria mostraron resultados divergentes, razón por la cual se requiere de más investigación para dilucidar tales hallazgos.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Nurses as substitutes for doctors in primary care

          Background Current and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi‐morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005. Objectives Our aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on: • patient outcomes; • processes of care; and • utilisation, including volume and cost. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to ‘Studies awaiting classification’. Selection criteria Randomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis. Main results For this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle‐income country, and all other studies in high‐income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and follow‐up of patients with a particular chronic conditions such as diabetes. In many of the studies, nurses could get additional support or advice from a doctor. Nurse‐doctor substitution for preventive services and health education in primary care has been less well studied. Study findings suggest that care delivered by nurses, compared to care delivered by doctors, probably generates similar or better health outcomes for a broad range of patient conditions (low‐ or moderate‐certainty evidence): • Nurse‐led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor‐led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse‐led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths (low‐certainty evidence). • Blood pressure outcomes are probably slightly improved in nurse‐led primary care. Other clinical or health status outcomes are probably similar (moderate‐certainty evidence). • Patient satisfaction is probably slightly higher in nurse‐led primary care (moderate‐certainty evidence). Quality of life may be slightly higher (low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on process of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low. The effect of nurse‐led care on utilisation of care is mixed and depends on the type of outcome. Consultations are probably longer in nurse‐led primary care (moderate‐certainty evidence), and numbers of attended return visits are slightly higher for nurses than for doctors (high‐certainty evidence). We found little or no difference between nurses and doctors in the number of prescriptions and attendance at accident and emergency units (high‐certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the number of tests and investigations, hospital referrals and hospital admissions between nurses and doctors (low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low. Authors' conclusions This review shows that for some ongoing and urgent physical complaints and for chronic conditions, trained nurses, such as nurse practitioners, practice nurses, and registered nurses, probably provide equal or possibly even better quality of care compared to primary care doctors, and probably achieve equal or better health outcomes for patients. Nurses probably achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction, compared to primary care doctors. Furthermore, consultation length is probably longer when nurses deliver care and the frequency of attended return visits is probably slightly higher for nurses, compared to doctors. Other utilisation outcomes are probably the same. The effects of nurse‐led care on process of care and the costs of care are uncertain, and we also cannot ascertain what level of nursing education leads to the best outcomes when nurses are substituted for doctors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Cancer patients’ use of complementary and alternative medicine in Sweden: a cross-sectional study

            Background Access to and advice on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) are uncommon within Swedish conventional cancer care and little is known about cancer patients’ own use of CAM. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore Swedish cancer patients´ patterns of CAM use, their experiences and preferences. Methods Questionnaires were distributed consecutively to 1297 cancer patients at a university hospital’s out-patient oncology units. The response rate was 58% (n = 755). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey data. A logistic regression model was used to investigate the association between CAM use and gender, age and level of education. Open-ended responses were analyzed, using qualitative content analysis. Results Lifetime CAM use was reported by 34% (n = 256), and 26% (n = 198) used CAM after cancer diagnosis. Being female, younger and having higher education predicted CAM use. Most commonly used methods were natural products including vitamins and minerals and relaxation. Main reasons for CAM use were improvement of physical, general and emotional wellbeing and increasing the body’s ability to fight cancer. Satisfaction with CAM usage was generally high. Reported adverse effects were few and mild; 54% of users spent < 50 Euro a month on CAM. One third had discussed their CAM use with cancer care providers. More than half of all participants thought that cancer care providers should be able to discuss (58%) and to consider (54%) use of CAM modalities in cancer care. Conclusions Despite limited access and advice within conventional cancer care, one fourth of Swedish cancer patients use CAM. The insufficient patient-provider dialogue diverges with most patients’ wish for professional guidance in their decisions and integration of CAM modalities in conventional cancer care. Concurrent and multimodal CAM use implies challenges and possibilities for cancer care that need to be considered. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-019-2452-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Integrative Medicine Therapies for Pain Management in Cancer Patients

              Gary Deng (2019)
              Pain management for cancer patients should include pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. Integrative medicine therapies, such as mind-body practice, acupuncture, massage therapy, and music therapy, have been studied for their roles in pain management. Data from randomized controlled trials support the effect of hypnosis, acupuncture and music therapy in reduction of pain. Mindfulness meditation, yoga, qigong, and massage therapy, although may not reduce pain per se, can relieve anxiety and mood changes which are commonly associated with pain. In clinical practice, one should also consider burdens and risks to patients, patient preference, and the presence or absence of better alternatives when making decisions on whether an integrative medicine therapy is of clinical value.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Rev Lat Am Enfermagem
                rlae
                Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
                Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto / Universidade de São Paulo
                0104-1169
                1518-8345
                30 September 2020
                2020
                : 28
                : e3377
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Departamento de Enfermagem, Vitória, ES, Brazil.
                [2 ]Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Enfermagem, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Luís Carlos Lopes-Júnior E-mail: lopesjr.lc@ 123456gmail.com

                Associate editor: Maria Lúcia Zanetti

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2424-6510
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5158-6206
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6893-0755
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8372-325X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3433-4925
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4252-7092
                Article
                00612
                10.1590/1518-8345.4213.3377
                7529450
                33027406
                fc3d7489-9443-44d5-af51-e8273832bc48
                Copyright © 2020 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 February 2020
                : 24 June 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                complementary therapies,adult,cancer pain,palliative care,oncology nursing,evidence-based nursing,terapias complementares,adulto,dor do câncer,cuidados paliativos,enfermagem oncológica,enfermagem baseada em evidências,terapias complementarias,dolor en cáncer,enfermería oncológica,enfermería basada en la evidencia

                Comments

                Comment on this article