RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer are being given increasing responsibility for the self-management of their health and illness. In other chronic diseases, individuals who experience treatment burden are at risk of poorer health outcomes. Less is known about treatment burden and its impact on individuals with cancer. This systematic review investigated perceptions of treatment burden in individuals living with and beyond cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched for qualitative studies that explored treatment burden in individuals with a diagnosis of breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer at any stage of their diagnostic/treatment trajectory. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted. Study quality was assessed using a modified CASP checklist. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021145601). Forty-eight studies were included. Health management after cancer involved cognitive, practical, and relational work for patients. Individuals were motivated to perform health management work to improve life-expectancy, manage symptoms, and regain a sense of normality. Performing health care work could be empowering and gave individuals a sense of control. Treatment burden occurred when there was a mismatch between the resources needed for health management and their availability. Individuals with chronic and severe symptoms, financial challenges, language barriers, and limited social support are particularly at risk of treatment burden. For those with advanced cancer, consumption of time and energy by health care work is a significant burden. CONCLUSION: Treatment burden could be an important mediator of inequities in cancer outcomes. Many of the factors leading to treatment burden in individuals with cancer are potentially modifiable. Clinicians should consider carefully what they are asking or expecting patients to do, and the resources required, including how much patient time will be consumed.
Assuntos
Neoplasias , Autogestão , Masculino , Humanos , Apoio Social , Neoplasias/terapia , Neoplasias/psicologiaRESUMO
Existing systematic reviews have insufficiently delineated the differing cardiac and renal profile of ultrafiltration compared to diuretics as a method of decongestion in acute decompensated heart failure. This meta-analysis will investigate the impact of ultrafiltration compared to diuretics on prognostic cardiac and renal biomarkers. We searched PubMed Central, Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid Embase, all EBM reviews, and Web of Science Core Collection for randomised controlled trials published before 21 July 2022. Our main outcome measures were cardiac (brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) and renal biomarkers (serum creatinine, serum sodium, and blood urea nitrogen). A total of 10 randomised trials were included in our analysis after screening. An inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis of the pooled results demonstrated no significant difference between ultrafiltration and diuretics for brain natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, creatinine, sodium and long-term blood urea nitrogen. However, ultrafiltration produced statistically greater increases in blood urea nitrogen in the short-term (mean difference, 3.88; 95% confidence interval 0.59-7.17 mg/dL). Overall, ultrafiltration produces a similar impact on prognostic cardiac and renal biomarkers when compared to diuretic therapy. We highlight ultrafiltration's significant impact on short-term BUN and recommend further research to investigate more optimal protocols of ultrafiltration administration.
