护士提供的家庭健康对话的有效性:系统回顾。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Birte Østergaard, Erla Kolbrun-Svavarsdottir, Anne Brødsgaard, Stine Rosenstrøm, Cristina Garcia-Vivar, Hanne Konradsen, Karin Brochstedt-Dieperink, Lorenz Imhof, Romy Mahrer-Imhof, Marie Louise Luttik
{"title":"护士提供的家庭健康对话的有效性:系统回顾。","authors":"Birte Østergaard, Erla Kolbrun-Svavarsdottir, Anne Brødsgaard, Stine Rosenstrøm, Cristina Garcia-Vivar, Hanne Konradsen, Karin Brochstedt-Dieperink, Lorenz Imhof, Romy Mahrer-Imhof, Marie Louise Luttik","doi":"10.1111/jocn.70058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To extract and interpret quantitative data exploring the effectiveness of family health conversations (FHCs) on family functioning, perceived support, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden and family health in families living with critical or chronic health conditions.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Addressing the health of families affected by critical or chronic illnesses requires focused attention. The effective integration of FHCs is hampered by a scarcity of rigorous quantitative studies that provide solid evidence on best practices and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Appropriate studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Databases. Results of the search were imported into the Covidence web-based program. Included were studies with a quantitative research design, delivered to families with critical or chronic health conditions, describing FHCs based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model and/or the Calgary Family Intervention Model, and/or the Illness Beliefs Model, using reliable and validated instruments, published between 2008 and 2023, and written in English.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 24 papers met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen papers used a quasi-experimental design, eight of which included a control group. Two papers used a mixed methods design, and six papers were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A statistically significant effect of FHCs on family functioning was reported in two RCTs and three quasi-experimental papers. We also found that a statistically significant effect of FHCs was reported on perceived support in 9 of 15 papers, quality of life in 4 of 11 papers and caregiver burden in 1 of 3 papers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and implications for clinical practice: </strong>The interventions reviewed revealed variability and partial results concerning the effectiveness of FHCs on family functioning. More rigorous research about short-term, intermediate- and long-term effectiveness is needed before conclusions can be drawn.</p><p><strong>Reporting method: </strong>The study is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (File S1).</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>No patient or public contribution. Data were gathered from previously published studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of Family Health Conversations Delivered by Nurses: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Birte Østergaard, Erla Kolbrun-Svavarsdottir, Anne Brødsgaard, Stine Rosenstrøm, Cristina Garcia-Vivar, Hanne Konradsen, Karin Brochstedt-Dieperink, Lorenz Imhof, Romy Mahrer-Imhof, Marie Louise Luttik\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jocn.70058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To extract and interpret quantitative data exploring the effectiveness of family health conversations (FHCs) on family functioning, perceived support, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden and family health in families living with critical or chronic health conditions.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Addressing the health of families affected by critical or chronic illnesses requires focused attention. The effective integration of FHCs is hampered by a scarcity of rigorous quantitative studies that provide solid evidence on best practices and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Appropriate studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Databases. Results of the search were imported into the Covidence web-based program. Included were studies with a quantitative research design, delivered to families with critical or chronic health conditions, describing FHCs based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model and/or the Calgary Family Intervention Model, and/or the Illness Beliefs Model, using reliable and validated instruments, published between 2008 and 2023, and written in English.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 24 papers met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen papers used a quasi-experimental design, eight of which included a control group. Two papers used a mixed methods design, and six papers were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A statistically significant effect of FHCs on family functioning was reported in two RCTs and three quasi-experimental papers. We also found that a statistically significant effect of FHCs was reported on perceived support in 9 of 15 papers, quality of life in 4 of 11 papers and caregiver burden in 1 of 3 papers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and implications for clinical practice: </strong>The interventions reviewed revealed variability and partial results concerning the effectiveness of FHCs on family functioning. More rigorous research about short-term, intermediate- and long-term effectiveness is needed before conclusions can be drawn.</p><p><strong>Reporting method: </strong>The study is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (File S1).</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>No patient or public contribution. Data were gathered from previously published studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70058\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70058","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:提取和解释定量数据,探讨家庭健康对话(FHCs)在家庭功能、感知支持、与健康相关的生活质量、照顾者负担和患有严重或慢性疾病的家庭健康方面的有效性。背景:处理受严重或慢性疾病影响的家庭的健康问题需要集中注意。由于缺乏严谨的定量研究,无法就最佳做法和结果提供确凿证据,因此阻碍了金融金融公司的有效整合。设计:根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所的指导方针进行系统的回顾。方法:按照PRISMA 2020检查表进行综述。在PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus和Cochrane数据库中检索了相应的研究。搜索结果被导入到基于covid - 19的程序中。纳入了采用定量研究设计的研究,这些研究以卡尔加里家庭评估模型和/或卡尔加里家庭干预模型和/或疾病信念模型为基础,使用可靠和有效的工具,在2008年至2023年之间发表,以英语撰写,描述了家庭健康问题。结果:共有24篇论文符合纳入标准。16篇论文采用了准实验设计,其中8篇包括一个对照组。两篇论文采用混合方法设计,六篇论文采用随机对照试验(RCTs)。两项随机对照试验和三篇准实验论文报道了fhc对家庭功能的统计显著影响。我们还发现,15篇论文中有9篇报告了fhc对感知支持的显著影响,11篇论文中有4篇报告了生活质量,3篇论文中有1篇报告了照顾者负担。结论和对临床实践的影响:对干预措施的回顾揭示了fhc对家庭功能有效性的变异性和部分结果。在得出结论之前,需要对短期、中期和长期的有效性进行更严格的研究。报告方法:本研究根据PRISMA 2020(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)(文件S1)进行报告。患者或公众捐款:没有患者或公众捐款。数据是从先前发表的研究中收集的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effectiveness of Family Health Conversations Delivered by Nurses: A Systematic Review.

Aim: To extract and interpret quantitative data exploring the effectiveness of family health conversations (FHCs) on family functioning, perceived support, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden and family health in families living with critical or chronic health conditions.

Background: Addressing the health of families affected by critical or chronic illnesses requires focused attention. The effective integration of FHCs is hampered by a scarcity of rigorous quantitative studies that provide solid evidence on best practices and outcomes.

Design: A systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines.

Methods: The review is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Appropriate studies were searched in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Cochrane Databases. Results of the search were imported into the Covidence web-based program. Included were studies with a quantitative research design, delivered to families with critical or chronic health conditions, describing FHCs based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model and/or the Calgary Family Intervention Model, and/or the Illness Beliefs Model, using reliable and validated instruments, published between 2008 and 2023, and written in English.

Results: In total, 24 papers met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen papers used a quasi-experimental design, eight of which included a control group. Two papers used a mixed methods design, and six papers were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A statistically significant effect of FHCs on family functioning was reported in two RCTs and three quasi-experimental papers. We also found that a statistically significant effect of FHCs was reported on perceived support in 9 of 15 papers, quality of life in 4 of 11 papers and caregiver burden in 1 of 3 papers.

Conclusion and implications for clinical practice: The interventions reviewed revealed variability and partial results concerning the effectiveness of FHCs on family functioning. More rigorous research about short-term, intermediate- and long-term effectiveness is needed before conclusions can be drawn.

Reporting method: The study is reported according to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (File S1).

Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution. Data were gathered from previously published studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice. JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice. We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信