Telemental health for reaching out to patients in a time of pandemic: Provider survey and systematic review with meta-analysis of patient satisfaction (Preprint)

e18088 Background: Patient navigation (PN) is a model of health care coordination designed to ameliorate health disparities by reducing barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews that evaluate whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: 1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and 2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational design. We abstracted data from studies using standardized forms, and evaluated these studies for methodological quality. Data were summarized qualitatively and synthesized under a random effects model. Results: The initial search yielded 831 citations, of which 3 RCTs and 6 observational studies met inclusion criteria. These nine studies involving 4,200 surveyed patients revealed either a neutral or positive effect in patient satisfaction in the majority of studies of PN and cancer-related care. However, only 5 studies (1 RCT and 4 observational) had adequate datato include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of eight of the included studies ranged from weak to moderate to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCT showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79, 2.80, p < .001]. Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.80, p = .06). Conclusions: More systematic reviews are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care across the cancer care continuum and across different types of cancer.

Download Full-text

Determinants of patient satisfaction: a systematic review

Perspectives in Public Health ◽

10.1177/1757913916634136 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 137 (2) ◽

pp. 89-101 ◽

Cited By ~ 128

Author(s):

Enkhjargal Batbaatar ◽

Javkhlanbayar Dorjdagva ◽

Ariunbat Luvsannyam ◽

Matteo Mario Savino ◽

Pietro Amenta

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Measurement System ◽

English Language ◽

Care Service ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Health Care Service ◽

Care Quality ◽

Health Providers ◽

Study Results

Aim: A large number of studies have addressed the detection of patient satisfaction determinants, and the results are still inconclusive. Furthermore, it is known that contradicting evidence exists across patient satisfaction studies. This article is the second part of a two-part series of research with a goal to review a current conceptual framework of patient satisfaction for further operationalisation procedures. The aim of this work was to systematically identify and review evidence regarding determinants of patient satisfaction between 1980 and 2014, and to seek the reasons for contradicting results in relationships between determinants and patient satisfaction in the literature to design a further robust measurement system for patient satisfaction. Method: This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus in October 2014. Studies published in full in peer reviewed journals between January 1980 and August 2014 and in the English language were included. We included 109 articles for the synthesis. Results: We found several number of determinants of patient satisfaction investigated in a wide diversity of studies. However, study results were varied due to no globally accepted formulation of patient satisfaction and measurement system. Conclusions: Health care service quality indicators were the most influential determinants of patient satisfaction across the studies. Among them, health providers’ interpersonal care quality was the essential determinant of patient satisfaction. Sociodemographic characteristics were the most varied in the review. The strength and directions of associations with patient satisfaction were found inconsistent. Therefore, person-related characteristics should be considered to be the potential determinants and confounders simultaneously. The selected studies were not able to show all potential characteristics which may have had effects on satisfaction. There is a need for more studies on how cultural, behavioural, and socio-demographic differences affect patient satisfaction, using a standardised questionnaire.

Download Full-text

Impact of hospitalists on the efficiency of inpatient care and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives ◽

10.1080/20009666.2019.1591901 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (2) ◽

pp. 121-134 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Sohail Abdul Salim ◽

Ahmed Elmaraezy ◽

Amaleswari Pamarthy ◽

Charat Thongprayoon ◽

Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Inpatient Care ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Platelet-rich Plasma for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A Central European Neurosurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1709170 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 81 (06) ◽

pp. 529-534 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Zhaopeng Xuan ◽

Wenjun Yu ◽

Yichen Dou ◽

Tao Wang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Back Pain ◽

Pain Relief ◽

Platelet Rich Plasma ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Low Back ◽

Pain Scores ◽

Control Intervention

Abstract Background Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) may be beneficial for patients with low back pain. However, the results remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of PRP for low back pain. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of PRP on low back pain were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores within 8 weeks. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Results Three RCTs involving 131 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control intervention for low back pain, PRP injection was found to reduce pain scores significantly (mean difference: − 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], − 2.12 to − 0.81; p < 0.0001), improve the number of patients with > 50% pain relief at 3 months (risk ratio [RR]: 4.14; 95% CI, 2.22–7.74; p < 0.00001), and offer relatively good patient satisfaction (RR: 1.91; 95% CI, 1.04–3.53; p = 0.04). No increase in adverse events was reported after PRP injection (RR: 1.92; 95% CI, 0.94-3.91; p = 0.07). Conclusions Compared with control intervention for low back pain, PRP injection was found to improve pain relief and patient satisfaction significantly with no increase in adverse events.

Download Full-text

Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16057/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Junheng Chen ◽

Chao Chen ◽

Guoliang Sun ◽

Chunming Guo ◽

Weifeng Yao

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Side Effects ◽

Abdominal Surgery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block ◽

Transversus Abdominis ◽

Transversus Abdominis Plane ◽

Quadratus Lumborum ◽

Vas Scores

Abstract Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the analgesic efficacy of the quadratus lumborum block (QLB) and transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB). Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Only trials comparing QLB with TAPB were included. The primary outcomes were visual analog scale (VAS) scores at rest and at movement during the first 48 h after surgery and postoperative analgesic requirements. Secondary outcomes included rates of side effects, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and dizziness, and patient satisfaction. Results: A total of 15 controlled trials, including 1013 patients, were identified. VAS scores at rest at 0–1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h and at movement at 24 and 48 h were significantly lower in patients who underwent QLB when compared with those in patients who underwent TAPB. QLB performed better in terms of postoperative analgesic requirements, with patients requiring lower levels of intravenous morphine and sufentanil over the first 24 h, fewer patients requiring rescue analgesics, and longer times to first rescue analgesic. Among patients who underwent QLB, rates of PONV and dizziness were lower and the Bruggemann comfort scale (BCS) scores were higher. Conclusion: QLB leads to significantly better outcomes in terms of postoperative VAS scores, opioid consumption, incidence of side effects, and patient satisfaction when compared with TAPB following abdominal surgery.

Download Full-text

Vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo for pain relief during intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

10.1101/2020.10.08.20209239 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ahmed Abu-Zaid ◽

Majed S. Alshahrani ◽

Nisreen A. Albezrah ◽

Najlaa T. Miski ◽

Saud A. Aboudi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Side Effects ◽

Pain Relief ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intrauterine Device ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Pain Patient ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Uterine Perforation

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the safety and efficacy of vaginal dinoprostone versus placebo in pain relief during intrauterine device (IUD) insertion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.SettingNot applicable.Patient(s)Women undergoing IUD insertion and receiving vaginal dinoprostone or placebo.Intervention(s)PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were screened from inception to 01-October-2020, using the following search strategy: (dinoprostone OR cervidil OR prepidil) AND (intrauterine device OR iud).Main outcome measure(s)IUD insertion related pain, patient satisfaction, provider ease of IUD insertion, and side effects.Result(s)Five studies met the study inclusion criteria, comprising 862 patients; equally 431 patients received vaginal dinoprostone and placebo. All studies had an overall low risk of bias. When compared to placebo, dinoprostone significantly correlated with decreased pain at tenaculum placement (SMD=−0.79, 95% CI [−1.43, −0.16], p=0.01), decreased pain at uterine sounding (SMD=−0.88, 95% CI [−1.54, −0.22], p=0.009), decreased pain at IUD insertion (SMD=−1.18, 95% CI [−1.74, −0.61], p<0.001), decreased need for additional analgesia (RR=0.34, 95% CI [0.22, 0.53], p<0.001), increased patient satisfaction (SMD=1.41, 95% CI [0.62, 2.20], p<0.001), and increased provider ease of IUD insertion (SMD=−1.17, 95% CI [−1.62, −0.73], p<0.001). Fever was statistically significantly higher in dinoprostone versus placebo group (RR=3.73, 95% CI [1.47, 9.44], p=0.006). All other side effects—including nausea, vomiting, shivering, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, vasovagal attack, uterine perforation, and postprocedural bleeding—did not substantially differ between both groups.ConclusionsThis first ever meta-analysis advocates that dinoprostone is safe, effective, and yields favorable analgesic outcomes during IUD insertion.

Download Full-text

Telemental health for reaching out to patients in a time of pandemic: Provider survey and systematic review with meta-analysis of patient satisfaction (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.26187 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Raffaele Mazziotti ◽

Grazia Rutigliano

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Mental Health ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Health Services ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Random Effect Model ◽

Telemental Health ◽

Mental Health Providers ◽

Health Providers

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to impact mental health, while disrupting access to care, due to physical distance measures and to the unexpected pressure on public health services. Telemental health (TM) was rapidly implemented to deliver healthcare services. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were: i) to present state-of-the-art TM research; ii) to survey mental health providers about care delivery during the pandemic; iii) to assess patient satisfaction with TM. METHODS Document clustering was applied to map research topics within TM research. A survey was circulated among mental health providers. Patient satisfaction was investigated through a meta-analysis of studies retrieved from Web of KnowledgeSM and Scopus® comparing satisfaction scores between TM and face-to-face (FtF) interventions for mental health disorders. Hedges’ g was used as effect size measure. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effect model. Sources of heterogeneity and bias were sought. RESULTS Evidence about TM has been accumulating since 2000’, especially regarding service implementation, depressive/anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and special populations. Research was concentrated in a few countries. The survey (n=174 respondents from Italy, n=120 international) confirmed that, after the onset of COVID-19 outbreak, there was a massive shift from FtF to TM delivery of care. However, respondents held skeptical views about TM, and did not feel sufficiently trained and satisfied. Meta-analysis of 29 studies (n=2143) showed that patients would be equally satisfied with TM as compared to FtF (Hedges’ g=-0,001, 95% CI: -0,116-0,114, p=0,985, Q=43,83, I2=36%, p=0,029), if technology-related issues were minimized. CONCLUSIONS Mental health services equipped with TM will be more able to successfully cope with public health crises. Both providers and patients need to be actively engaged in digitization, to re-shape their reciprocal trust around technological innovations. CLINICALTRIAL The protocol was registered in PROSPERO [registration number: CRD42020192299].

Download Full-text