This systematic review aimed to identify the unmet care needs and their associated variables in patients with advanced cancer and informal caregivers, alongside summarizing the tools used for needs assessment. Ten electronic databases were searched systematically from inception of each database to December 2016 to determine eligible studies. Studies that considered the unmet care needs of either adult patients with advanced cancer or informal caregivers, regardless of the study design, were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was utilized for quality appraisal of the included studies. Content analysis was used to identify unmet needs, and descriptive analysis was adopted to synthesize other outcomes. Fifty studies were included, and their methodological quality was generally robust. The prevalence of unmet needs varied across studies. Twelve unmet need domains were identified in patients with advanced cancer, and seven among informal caregivers. The three most commonly reported domains for patients were psychological, physical, and healthcare service and information. The most prominent unmet items of these domains were emotional support (10.1–84.4%), fatigue (18–76.3%), and “being informed about benefits and side-effects of treatment” (4–66.7%). The most commonly identified unmet needs for informal caregivers were information needs, including illness and treatment information (26–100%) and care-related information (21–100%). Unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer were associated with their physical symptoms, anxiety, and quality of life. The most commonly used instruments for needs assessment among patients with advanced cancer were the Supportive Care Needs Survey (N = 8) and Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire (N = 5). The majority of the included studies investigated unmet needs from the perspectives of either patients or caregivers with a cross-sectional study design using single time-point assessments. Moreover, significant heterogeneity, including differences in study contexts, assessment methods, instruments for measurement, need classifications, and reporting methods, were identified across studies. Both advanced cancer patients and informal caregivers reported a wide range of context-bound unmet needs. Examining their unmet needs on the basis of viewing patients and their informal caregivers as a whole unit will be highly optimal. Unmet care needs should be comprehensively evaluated from the perspectives of all stakeholders and interpreted by using rigorously designed mixed methods research and longitudinal studies within a given context.

Objectives To identify the barriers and enablers to implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations in primary care and to provide recommendations that could facilitate the uptake of CPGs recommendations. Design An overview of systematic reviews. Data sources Nine electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Journals @Ovid Full Text, EMBase, JBI) and three online data sources for guidelines (Turning Research Into Practice, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were searched until May 2021. Eligibility criteria Systematic reviews, meta-analyses or other types of systematic synthesis of quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods studies on the topic of barriers and/or enablers for CPGs implementation in primary care were included. Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently screened the studies and extracted the data using a predesigned data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised by using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Content analysis was used to synthesise the data. Results Twelve systematic reviews were included. The methodological quality of the included reviews was generally robust. Six categories of barriers and enablers were identified, which include (1) political, social and culture factors, (2) institutional environment and resources factors, (3) guideline itself related factors, (4) healthcare provider-related factors, (5) patient-related factors and (6) behavioural regulation-related factors. The most commonly reported barriers within the above-mentioned categories were suboptimal healthcare networks and interprofessional communication pathways, time constraints, poor applicability of CPGs in real-world practice, lack of knowledge and skills, poor motivations and adherence, and inadequate reinforcement (eg, remuneration). Presence of technical support (‘institutional environment and resources factors’), and timely education and training for both primary care providers (PCPs) (‘healthcare provider-related factors’) and patients (‘patient-related factors’) were the frequently reported enablers. Conclusion Policy-driven strategies should be developed to motivate different levels of implementation activities, which include optimising resources allocations, promoting integrated care models, establishing well-coordinated multidisciplinary networks, increasing technical support, encouraging PCPs and patients’ engagement in guideline development, standardising the reporting of guidelines, increasing education and training, and stimulating PCPs and patients’ motivations. All the activities should be conducted by fully considering the social, cultural and community contexts to ensure the success and sustainability of CPGs implementation.

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on adverse events associated with auricular therapy (AT). Case reports, case series, surveys, and all types of clinical trials reporting adverse events of AT were included. Relevant articles were mainly retrieved from 13 electronic databases and seven Chinese journals on complementary medicine. AT‐related adverse events were reported in 32 randomized controlled trials, five uncontrolled clinical trials, four case reports, and two controlled clinical trials. For auricular acupuncture, the most frequently reported adverse events were tenderness or pain at insertion, dizziness, local discomfort, minor bleeding and nausea, and so forth. For auricular acupressure, local skin irritation and discomfort, mild tenderness or pain, and dizziness were commonly reported. Skin irritation, local discomfort, and pain were detected in auricular electroacupuncture, and minor infection was identified in auricular bloodletting therapy. Most of these events were transient, mild, and tolerable, and no serious adverse events were identified. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that AT is a relatively safe approach. Considering the patient’s safety, prospective or retrospective surveys are needed in future research to gather practitioner‐reported and patient‐reported adverse events on AT, and the quality of adverse events reporting in future AT trials should be improved.