Depression self-management support: A systematic review

2013 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janie Houle ◽  
Marjolaine Gascon-Depatie ◽  
Gabrielle Bélanger-Dumontier ◽  
Charles Cardinal
2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (8) ◽  
pp. 1807-1824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veerle Duprez ◽  
Tina Vandecasteele ◽  
Sofie Verhaeghe ◽  
Dimitri Beeckman ◽  
Ann Van Hecke

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie I van Dongen ◽  
Kim de Nooijer ◽  
Jane M Cramm ◽  
Anneke L Francke ◽  
Wendy H Oldenmenger ◽  
...  

Background: Patients with advanced cancer are increasingly expected to self-manage. Thus far, this topic has received little systematic attention. Aim: To summarise studies describing self-management strategies of patients with advanced cancer and associated experiences and personal characteristics. Also, to summarise attitudes of relatives and healthcare professionals towards patient self-management. Design: A systematic review including non-experimental quantitative and qualitative studies. Data were analysed using critical interpretive synthesis. Included studies were appraised on methodological quality and quality of reporting. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar (until 11 June 2019). Results: Of 1742 identified articles, 31 moderate-quality articles describing 8 quantitative and 23 qualitative studies were included. Patients with advanced cancer used self-management strategies in seven domains: medicine and pharmacology, lifestyle, mental health, social support, knowledge and information, navigation and coordination and medical decision-making (29 articles). Strategies were highly individual, sometimes ambivalent and dependent on social interactions. Older patients and patients with more depressive symptoms and lower levels of physical functioning, education and self-efficacy might have more difficulties with certain self-management strategies (six articles). Healthcare professionals perceived self-management as desirable and achievable if based on sufficient skills and knowledge and solid patient–professional partnerships (three articles). Conclusion: Self-management of patients with advanced cancer is highly personal and multifaceted. Strategies may be substitutional, additional or even conflicting compared to care provided by healthcare professionals. Self-management support can benefit from an individualised approach embedded in solid partnerships with relatives and healthcare professionals.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marika Franklin ◽  
Sophie Lewis ◽  
Karen Willis ◽  
Helen Bourke-Taylor ◽  
Lorraine Smith

Objective To review studies examining the experience of self-management support in patient–provider interactions and the shaping of goals through interactions. Methods We undertook a systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature. We searched six databases (2004–2015) for published studies on the provision of self-management support in one-to-one, face-to-face, patient–provider interactions for obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with 14 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Results Themes identified from studies were (1) dominance of a traditional model of care, encompassing the provision of generic information, exclusion of the psychosocial and temporal nature of interactions and (2) a context of individual responsibility and accountability, encompassing self-management as patients’ responsibility and adherence, accountability and the attribution of blame. Interactions were constrained by consultation times, patient self-blame and guilt, desire for autonomy and beliefs about what constitutes ‘effective’ self-management. Discussion Encounters were oriented towards a traditional model of care delivery and this limited opportunity for collaboration. These findings suggest that healthcare professionals remain in a position of authority, limiting opportunities for control to be shared with patients and shared understandings of social context to be developed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Massimi ◽  
C De Vito ◽  
I Brufola ◽  
A Corsaro ◽  
C Marzuillo ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Peter Hanlon ◽  
Iona Bryson ◽  
Holly Morrison ◽  
Qasim Rafiq ◽  
Kasey Boehmer ◽  
...  

Introduction: People living with type 2 diabetes undertake a range of tasks to manage their condition, collectively referred to as self-management. Interventions designed to support self-management vary in their content, and efficacy. This systematic review will analyse self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes drawing on theoretical models of patient workload and capacity. Methods and analysis: Five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO) will be searched from inception to 27th April 2021, supplemented by citation searching and hand-searching of reference lists. Two reviewers will independently review titles, abstracts and full texts. Inclusion criteria include Population: Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus; Intervention: Randomised controlled trials of self-management support interventions; Comparison: Usual care; Outcomes: HbA1c (primary outcome) health-related quality of life (QOL), medication adherence, self-efficacy, treatment burden, healthcare utilization (e.g. number of appointment, hospital admissions), complications of type 2 diabetes (e.g. nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy, macrovascular disease) and mortality; Setting: Community. Study quality will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool. Interventions will be classified according to the EPOC taxonomy and the PRISMS self-management taxonomy and grouped into similar interventions for analysis. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity will be assessed within subgroups, and random effects meta-analyses performed if appropriate. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. Interventions will be graded on their likely impact on patient workload and support for patient capacity. The impact of these theoretical constructs on study outcomes will be explored using meta-regression. Conclusion This review will provide a broad overview of self-management interventions, analysed within the cumulative complexity model theoretical framework. Analyses will explore how the workload associated with self-management, and support for patient capacity, impact on outcomes of self-management interventions. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42021236980.


10.2196/13080 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e13080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemakumar Devan ◽  
Devin Farmery ◽  
Lucy Peebles ◽  
Rebecca Grainger

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie JC Taylor ◽  
Hilary Pinnock ◽  
Eleni Epiphaniou ◽  
Gemma Pearce ◽  
Hannah L Parke ◽  
...  

BackgroundDespite robust evidence concerning self-management for some long-term conditions (LTCs), others lack research explicitly on self-management and, consequently, some patient groups may be overlooked.AimTo undertake a rapid, systematic overview of the evidence on self-management support for LTCs to inform health-care commissioners and providers about what works, for whom, and in what contexts.MethodsSelf-management is ‘the tasks . . . individuals must undertake to live with one or more chronic conditions . . . [including] . . . having the confidence to deal with medical management, role management and emotional management of their conditions’. We convened an expert workshop and identified characteristics of LTCs potentially of relevance to self-management and 14 diverse exemplar LTCs (stroke, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, dementia, epilepsy, hypertension, inflammatory arthropathies, irritable bowel syndrome, low back pain, progressive neurological disorders and type 1 diabetes mellitus). For each LTC we conducted systematic overviews of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of self-management support interventions (‘quantitative meta-reviews’); and systematic overviews of systematic reviews of qualitative studies of patients’ experiences relating to self-management (‘qualitative meta-reviews’). We also conducted an original systematic review of implementation studies of self-management support in the LTCs. We synthesised all our data considering the different characteristics of LTCs. In parallel, we developed a taxonomy of the potential components of self-management support.ResultsWe included 30 qualitative systematic reviews (including 515 unique studies), 102 quantitative systematic reviews (including 969 RCTs), and 61 studies in the implementation systematic review. Effective self-management support interventions are multifaceted, should be tailored to the individual, their culture and beliefs, a specific LTC and position on the disease trajectory, and underpinned by a collaborative/communicative relationship between the patient and health-care professional (HCP) within the context of a health-care organisation that actively promotes self-management. Self-management support is a complex intervention and although many components were described and trialled in the studies no single component stood out as more important than any other. Core components include (1) provision of education about the LTC, recognising the importance of understanding patients’ pre-existing knowledge and beliefs about their LTC; (2) psychological strategies to support adjustment to life with a LTC; (3) strategies specifically to support adherence to treatments; (4) practical support tailored to the specific LTC, including support around activities of daily living for disabling conditions, action plans in conditions subject to marked exacerbations, intensive disease-specific training to enable self-management of specific clinical tasks; and (5) social support as appropriate. Implementation requires a whole-systems approach which intervenes at the level of the patient, the HCP and the organisation. The health-care organisation is responsible for providing the means (both training and time/material resources) to enable HCPs to implement, and patients to benefit from, self-management support, regularly evaluating self-management processes and clinical outcomes. More widely there is a societal need to address public understanding of LTCs. The lack of public story for many conditions impacted on patient help-seeking behaviour and public perceptions of need.ConclusionsSupporting self-management is inseparable from the high-quality care for LTCs. Commissioners and health-care providers should promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and rewarded aspect of care. Further research is needed to understand how health service managers and staff can achieve this culture change in their health-care organisations.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002898.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document