Evidence shows that a substantial proportion of patients with COVID-19 experiences long-term consequences of the disease, but the predisposing factors are poorly understood. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization associated with an increased risk of exhibiting new or persisting symptoms (Post-COVID-19 Syndrome, PCS). MedLine and WebOfScience were last searched on 30 September 2021. We included English language clinical trials and observational studies investigating prognostic factors for PCS in adults previously hospitalized for COVID-19, reporting at least one individual prospective follow-up of minimum 12 weeks. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, which was judged generally moderate. Risk factors were included in the analysis if their association with PCS was investigated by at least two studies. To summarize the prognostic effect of each factor (or group of factors), odds ratios were estimated using raw data. Overall, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria, involving 13,340 patients. Associations were statistically significant for two factors: female sex with any symptoms (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.27–1.82), with mental health symptoms (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29) and with fatigue (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.32–1.79); acute disease severity with respiratory symptoms (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.03–2.68). The I² statistics tests were calculated to quantify the degree of study heterogeneity. This is the first meta-analysis measuring the association between factors present during COVID-19 hospitalization and long-term sequelae. The role of female sex and acute disease severity as independent prognostic factors must be confirmed in robust longitudinal studies with longer follow-up. Identifying populations at greatest risk for PCS can enable the development of targeted prevention and management strategies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253467.

This study examined the effects of the routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on the overall survival of adult patients with cancer. We included clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that compared PRO monitoring interventions in cancer clinical practice to usual care. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used. In total, six studies were included in the systematic review: two randomized trials, one population-based retrospectively matched cohort study, two pre–post with historical control studies and one non-randomized controlled trial. Half were multicenter, two were conducted in Europe, three were conducted in the USA and was conducted in Canada. Two studies considered any type of cancer, two were restricted to lung cancer and two were restricted to advanced forms of cancer. PRO screening was electronic in four of the six studies. The meta-analysis included all six studies (intervention = 130.094; control = 129.903). The pooled mortality outcome at 1 year was RR = 0.77 (95%CI 0.76–0.78) as determined by the common effect model and RR = 0.82 (95%CI 0.60–1.12; p = 0.16) as determined by the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was statistically significant (I² = 73%; p < 0.01). The overall risk of bias was rated as moderate in five studies and serious in one study. This meta-analysis seemed to indicate the survival benefits of PRO screening. As routine PRO monitoring is often challenging, more robust evidence regarding the effects of PROs on mortality would support systematic applications.

Over 20% of hospital bed use is inappropriate, implying a waste of resources and the increase of patient iatrogenic risk.

Background: Negative variation in the management of patients with the same clinical condition is frequent, and affects quality of care. Recent studies indicate that single interventions are not an effective solution. We aim to demonstrate that a multifaceted strategy can favor the introduction of research into practice, and to assess its long-term effects on a set of common medical conditions exhibiting significant negative variation at our institution. Methods: The strategy, devised and agreed upon by a multidisciplinary group, was first applied to one relevant medical condition – cerebral ischemic stroke. To test its effectiveness a quasi-experimental study was conducted, comparing an intervention group with historical controls. After validation the strategy was extended to other pathologies, and its long-term effect measured using evidence-based quality indicators. Adherence to each indicator was determined prospectively on a six-month basis for a period of at least two consecutive years. Measures are expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Validation findings demonstrated that the strategy improved compliance with scientific evidence: the percentage of patients who received a CT scan within 24 hours of hospital presentation rose from 56% to 75%, (χ² = 7.43 p < 0.01); admissions to selected wards increased from 45% to 64%, (χ² = 7.81 p < 0.01); the number of physical medicine visits within 24 hours of the request grew from 59% to 91% (χ² = 14,40 p < 0.001). Over a four-year period the program was gradually applied to 14 medical conditions. Except for 3 cases, compliance with the pathway, i.e. number of eligible patients for whom data on the care process is collected, was above the minimum requirement of 75%. Indicator adherence generally exhibited a positive trend, though variability was observed both among different conditions and between different semesters for the same pathology. Conclusion: According to our experience, incorporation of research into practice can be favored by systematically applying a shared, multifaceted strategy, involving multidisciplinary teams supported by central coordination. Institutions should device a tailor-made approach, should train personnel on implementation strategies, and create cultural acceptance of change. Just like for experimental trials, human and economic resources should be allocated within health care services to allow the achievement of this objective.

Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) have proven very effective in encouraging cancer patients to ask questions, allowing them to take up a more active role during visits with the oncologist. As no such tool has yet been validated for Italian-speaking users, we carried out the cross-cultural adaptation and evaluation of an existing Australian Question Prompt List.

This meta-analysis of RCTs aimed to determine whether replacing face-to-face hospital care with telemedicine deteriorates psychosocial outcomes of adult cancer patients, in terms of quality of life (QoL), anxiety, distress, and depression. RCTs on interventions aimed at improving patient psychosocial outcomes were excluded. MEDLINE, EmBASE, and PsycInfo were searched on 13 May 2022 without language or date restrictions. In total, 1400 records were identified and 8 RCTs included (4434 subjects). Study methodological quality was moderate. Statistically significant improvements were observed in favor of the intervention for QoL (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.43, p = 0.04), anxiety (SMD = −0.17, 95% CI −0.30 to −0.04, p < 0.01), and global distress (SMD = −0.38, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.25, p < 0.01). A meta-analysis on depression could not be performed. In subgroup analyses, the intervention appeared to be more beneficial for patients receiving active treatment vs. follow-up, for “other cancer types” vs. breast cancer, and for “other modes of administration” vs. telephone. Given the many potential advantages of being assisted at home, telemedicine appears to be a viable option in oncology. However, more research is necessary to determine the types of patients who may benefit the most from these alternative care modalities.