Scoping review identifying interventions that have been tested to optimise the experience of people from ethnic minority groups receiving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT).

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jurga McLean, Pinkie Chambers, Luke Steventon, Susanne Cruickshank, Shereen Nabhani-Gebara
{"title":"Scoping review identifying interventions that have been tested to optimise the experience of people from ethnic minority groups receiving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT).","authors":"Jurga McLean, Pinkie Chambers, Luke Steventon, Susanne Cruickshank, Shereen Nabhani-Gebara","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Disparities have been identified in many aspects of the cancer care pathway for people from minority ethnic groups (MEGs). Adherence to systemic anticancer therapies (SACTs) has been shown to impact morbidity and mortality, and therefore, inequitable experiences can have a detrimental effect on outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify interventions that focused on improving the experiences and clinical outcomes in people from MEG receiving SACT treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted according to Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to map the available literature. A comprehensive search was performed using three electronic databases (Medline, Embase and CINAHL). Standard scoping review methodology following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was used. Studies were included that assessed interventions to improve MEG patients' experience with SACT. Study types included in the review were evaluation studies, randomised/non-randomised controlled trials and all observational studies. Exclusion criteria were applied to studies including opinion pieces, literature and systematic reviews, non-English studies, conference abstracts and studies that were not describing an intervention. Independent duplicate screening, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken. Results of the studies were synthesised using a published equity framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Searches yielded 1356 articles. Nine studies were included after exclusion criteria were applied. Studies described six digital, two in-person and one hybrid intervention employing different research methodologies, ranging from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), feasibility studies and mixed methods studies. The majority of interventions in this study were delivered remotely, using digital platforms such as websites, recorded educational training materials as well as social media. These interventions were conducted in the USA and primarily targeted patients with early breast cancer from African American backgrounds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review showed that there has been a very small number of studies investigating interventions to optimise SACT treatment experiences in people from MEG. We found evidence of interventions incorporating the equity domains that reported improved patient engagement and experience. This new knowledge will help to implement future SACT interventions, addressing health inequities across the cancer continuum.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017560","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Disparities have been identified in many aspects of the cancer care pathway for people from minority ethnic groups (MEGs). Adherence to systemic anticancer therapies (SACTs) has been shown to impact morbidity and mortality, and therefore, inequitable experiences can have a detrimental effect on outcomes.

Objectives: To identify interventions that focused on improving the experiences and clinical outcomes in people from MEG receiving SACT treatments.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to map the available literature. A comprehensive search was performed using three electronic databases (Medline, Embase and CINAHL). Standard scoping review methodology following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was used. Studies were included that assessed interventions to improve MEG patients' experience with SACT. Study types included in the review were evaluation studies, randomised/non-randomised controlled trials and all observational studies. Exclusion criteria were applied to studies including opinion pieces, literature and systematic reviews, non-English studies, conference abstracts and studies that were not describing an intervention. Independent duplicate screening, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken. Results of the studies were synthesised using a published equity framework.

Results: Searches yielded 1356 articles. Nine studies were included after exclusion criteria were applied. Studies described six digital, two in-person and one hybrid intervention employing different research methodologies, ranging from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), feasibility studies and mixed methods studies. The majority of interventions in this study were delivered remotely, using digital platforms such as websites, recorded educational training materials as well as social media. These interventions were conducted in the USA and primarily targeted patients with early breast cancer from African American backgrounds.

Conclusions: This scoping review showed that there has been a very small number of studies investigating interventions to optimise SACT treatment experiences in people from MEG. We found evidence of interventions incorporating the equity domains that reported improved patient engagement and experience. This new knowledge will help to implement future SACT interventions, addressing health inequities across the cancer continuum.

范围审查确定已测试的干预措施,以优化少数民族群体接受全身抗癌治疗(SACT)的人的体验。
背景:少数民族人群(MEGs)在癌症治疗途径的许多方面都存在差异。坚持系统抗癌治疗(SACTs)已被证明会影响发病率和死亡率,因此,不公平的经历可能对结果产生不利影响。目的:确定专注于改善MEG患者接受SACT治疗的体验和临床结果的干预措施。方法:根据Arksey和O'Malley的方法框架进行范围审查,以绘制现有文献。使用三个电子数据库(Medline、Embase和CINAHL)进行全面检索。采用了遵循PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)指南的标准范围评价方法。研究包括评估干预措施以改善MEG患者的SACT体验。纳入本综述的研究类型包括评价研究、随机/非随机对照试验和所有观察性研究。排除标准适用于包括评论文章、文献和系统综述、非英语研究、会议摘要和未描述干预措施的研究。进行了独立的重复筛选、研究选择、数据提取和质量评估。这些研究的结果是使用公开的公平框架进行综合的。结果:搜索产生1356篇文章。采用排除标准后纳入了9项研究。研究采用不同的研究方法,包括随机对照试验(rct)、可行性研究和混合方法研究,描述了6项数字干预、2项面对面干预和1项混合干预。本研究中的大多数干预措施都是远程提供的,使用的是网站等数字平台、录制的教育培训材料以及社交媒体。这些干预措施在美国进行,主要针对非洲裔美国人背景的早期乳腺癌患者。结论:这一范围综述表明,只有极少数的研究调查了干预措施,以优化MEG患者的SACT治疗体验。我们发现了纳入公平领域的干预措施的证据,这些干预措施改善了患者的参与度和体验。这一新知识将有助于实施未来的SACT干预措施,解决整个癌症连续体的卫生不平等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信