Survival of patients with breast cancer attending Bristol Cancer Help Centre

Chilvers, Clair; Bagenal, F.S.; Easton, Douglas F.; Harris, Elly; McElwain, T. J.

doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)93402-b

Cited by 111 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Heather Goodare is a Cochrane consumer reviewer for breast cancer and stroke; she was the first patient representative on the BMJ Editorial Board (1995–1999) and is a Life Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine. Originally an academic book editor, Heather trained as a counsellor after her own experience of breast cancer and of a flawed research study (Chilvers et al [ 64 ]) in which she was a patient (see Goodare [ 65 ]).…”

Section: Authors’ Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.MethodsWe carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.ResultsWe included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews.Discussion/conclusionWe identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4.Electronic supplement...

show abstract

Section: Authors’ Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Informing Clinical Trial Participants About Study Results

Partridge

Winer²

2002

JAMA

139

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oncology nurses' attitudes towards alternative medicine

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about nurses' attitudes towards alternative medicine. The purpose of this study was to describe attitudes towards alternative medicine among nurses working on oncology wards in three university and one central hospital in Finland. The data were collected with a questionnaire specifically developed for this project. The response rate was 68.1% (n=92). The nurses did not regard alternative medicine as a safe and natural method in the treatment of cancer. On the contrary, many nurses believed that alternative therapies are offered by quack doctors for financial gain. However, the nurses considered it important that cancer patients have the opportunity to talk about their use of alternative medicine both with nurses and physicians. Overall the results indicated that nurses' attitudes are for the most part negative. An interesting question that deserves further attention is whether this attitude is reflected in nursing practice. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Survival of patients with breast cancer attending Bristol Cancer Help Centre

Cited by 111 publications

References 8 publications

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Informing Clinical Trial Participants About Study Results

Oncology nurses' attitudes towards alternative medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About