This individual patient data meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of exercise on quality of life (QoL) and physical function (PF) in patients with cancer, and to identify moderator effects of demographic (age, sex, marital status, education), clinical (body mass index, cancer type, presence of metastasis), intervention-related (intervention timing, delivery mode and duration, and type of control group), and exercise-related (exercise frequency, intensity, type, time) characteristics. Relevant published and unpublished studies were identified in September 2012 via PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, reference checking and personal communications. Principle investigators of all 69 eligible trials were requested to share IPD from their study. IPD from 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4519 patients) that evaluated the effects of exercise compared to a usual care, wait-list or attention control group on QoL and PF in adult patients with cancer were retrieved and pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to evaluate the effects of the exercise on post-intervention outcome values (z-score) adjusting for baseline values. Moderator effects were studies by testing interactions. Exercise significantly improved QoL (β=0.15, 95%CI=0.10;0.20) and PF (β=0.18, 95%CI=0.13;0.23). The effects were not moderated by demographic, clinical or exercise characteristics. Effects on QoL (βdifference_in_effect=0.13, 95%CI=0.03;0.22) and PF (βdifference_in_effect=0.10, 95%CI=0.01;0.20) were significantly larger for supervised than unsupervised interventions. In conclusion, exercise, and particularly supervised exercise, effectively improves QoL and PF in patients with cancer with different demographic and clinical characteristics during and following treatment. Although effect sizes are small, there is consistent empirical evidence to support implementation of exercise as part of cancer care.

A Systematic Review of Web-Based Interventions for Patient Empowerment and Physical Activity in Chronic Diseases: Relevance for Cancer Survivors

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

The number of medical technologies used in home settings has increased substantially over the last 10–15 years. In order to manage their use and to guarantee quality and safety, data on usage trends and practical experiences are important. This paper presents a literature review on types, trends and experiences with the use of advanced medical technologies at home. The study focused on advanced medical technologies that are part of the technical nursing process and ‘hands on’ processes by nurses, excluding information technology such as domotica. The systematic review of literature was performed by searching the databases MEDLINE, Scopus and Cinahl. We included papers from 2000 to 2015 and selected articles containing empirical material. The review identified 87 relevant articles, 62% was published in the period 2011–2015. Of the included studies, 45% considered devices for respiratory support, 39% devices for dialysis and 29% devices for oxygen therapy. Most research has been conducted on the topic ‘user experiences’ (36%), mainly regarding patients or informal caregivers. Results show that nurses have a key role in supporting patients and family caregivers in the process of homecare with advanced medical technologies and in providing information for, and as a member of multi-disciplinary teams. However, relatively low numbers of articles were found studying nurses perspective. Research on medical technologies used at home has increased considerably until 2015. Much is already known on topics, such as user experiences; safety, risks, incidents and complications; and design and technological development. We also identified a lack of research exploring the views of nurses with regard to medical technologies for homecare, such as user experiences of nurses with different technologies, training, instruction and education of nurses and human factors by nurses in risk management and patient safety.

Background: Telehealth interventions, that is, health care provided over a distance using information and communication technology, are suggested as a solution to rising health care costs by reducing hospital service use. However, the extent to which this is possible is unclear. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of telehealth on the use of hospital services, that is, (duration of) hospitalizations, and to compare the effects between telehealth types and health conditions. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 2019. Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effect of telehealth interventions on hospital service use compared with usual care were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Results: We included 127 RCTs in the meta-analysis. Of these RCTs, 82.7% (105/127) had a low risk of bias or some concerns overall. High-quality evidence shows that telehealth reduces the risk of all-cause or condition-related hospitalization by 18 (95% CI 0-30) and 37 (95% CI 20-60) per 1000 patients, respectively. We found high-quality evidence that telehealth leads to reductions in the mean all-cause and condition-related hospitalizations, with 50 and 110 fewer hospitalizations per 1000 patients, respectively. Overall, the all-cause hospital days decreased by 1.07 (95% CI −1.76 to −0.39) days per patient. For hospitalized patients, the mean hospital stay for condition-related hospitalizations decreased by 0.89 (95% CI −1.42 to −0.36) days. The effects were similar between telehealth types and health conditions. A trend was observed for studies with longer follow-up periods yielding larger effects. Conclusions: Small to moderate reductions in hospital service use can be achieved using telehealth. It should be noted that, despite the large number of included studies, uncertainties around the magnitude of effects remain, and not all effects are statistically significant.