BACKGROUND: Disturbances in sleep and circadian rhythms are common among residents of long-term care facilities. In this systematic review, we aim to identify and evaluate the literature documenting the outcomes associated with non-pharmacological interventions to improve nighttime sleep among long-term care residents.
METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guided searches of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for articles reporting results of experimental or quasi-experimental studies conducted in long-term care settings (nursing homes, assisted-living facilities, or group homes) in which nighttime sleep was subjectively or objectively measured as a primary outcome. We categorized each intervention by its intended use and how it was administered.
RESULTS: Of the 54 included studies evaluating the effects of 25 different non-pharmacological interventions, more than half employed a randomized controlled trial design (n = 30); the others used a pre-post design with (n = 11) or without (n = 13) a comparison group. The majority of randomized controlled trials were at low risk for most types of bias, and most other studies met the standard quality criteria. The interventions were categorized as environmental interventions (n = 14), complementary health practices (n = 12), social/physical stimulation (n = 11), clinical care practices (n = 3), or mind-body practices (n = 3). Although there was no clear pattern of positive findings, three interventions had the most promising results: increased daytime light exposure, nighttime use of melatonin, and acupressure.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-pharmacological interventions have the potential to improve sleep for residents of long-term care facilities. Further research is needed to better standardize such interventions and provide clear implementation guidelines using cost-effective practices.
Cancer pain is the most common complaint among patients with cancer. Conventional treatment does not always relieve cancer pain satisfactorily. Therefore, many patients with cancer have turned to complementary therapies to help them with their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Massage therapy is increasingly used for symptom relief in patients with cancer. The current study aimed to investigate by meta-analysis the effects of massage therapy for cancer patients experiencing pain. Nine electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published through August 2013 in English, Chinese, and Korean. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane risk-of-bias scales. Twelve studies, including 559 participants, were used in the meta-analysis. In 9 high-quality studies based on the PEDro scale (standardized mean difference, -1.24; 95% confidence interval, -1.72 to -0.75), we observed reduction in cancer pain after massage. Massage therapy significantly reduced cancer pain compared with no massage treatment or conventional care (standardized mean difference, -1.25; 95% confidence interval, -1.63 to -0.87). Our results indicate that massage is effective for the relief of cancer pain, especially for surgery-related pain. Among the various types of massage, foot reflexology appeared to be more effective than body or aroma massage. Our meta-analysis indicated a beneficial effect of massage for relief of cancer pain. Further well-designed, large studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to be able to draw firmer conclusions regarding the effectiveness.
Aims To assess and synthesize the evidence of the effects and safety of non-pharmacological interventions in treating pain in patients with advanced cancer. Background Pain is a common symptom experienced by patients with advanced cancer; the treatment of such pain is often suboptimal. To manage it, non-pharmacological interventions are recommended after pharmacological treatments have been re-evaluated and modified. However, there remains a lack of knowledge about the effects and safety of such interventions. Design A systematic review was conducted based on the procedure of the Centre of Reviews and Dissemination. Data Sources Research papers published between 2000-2013 were identified from the following databases: CINAHL, MEDIC, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Psyc INFO. The references in the selected studies were searched manually. Review Methods The studies selected were reviewed for quality, using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group risk of bias assessment criteria. Results There was limited evidence that some of the non-pharmacological interventions were promising with respect to reducing cancer pain. Relatively, few adverse events were reported as a result of using such interventions. Conclusion It was not possible to draw conclusions about the effects and safety of the non-pharmacological interventions in reducing cancer pain. Some interventions showed promising short-term effects, but there is a need for more rigorous trials. Qualitative studies are required to collect information about patients' perceptions. There are several research gaps: we found no studies about music, spiritual care, hypnosis, active coping training, cold or ultrasonic stimulation.
OBJECTIVE: We reviewed randomized controlled trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance in nondemented older adults. Data sources: We searched PubMed (1966-September 2006) and PsycINFO (1984-September 2006) databases using combinations of terms including depression, anxiety, and sleep; older adult/elderly; randomized controlled trial; and a list of 56 terms related to CAM. Study selection: Of the 855 studies identified by database searches, 29 met our inclusion criteria: sample size ≥ 30, treatment duration ≥ 2 weeks, and publication in English. Four additional articles from manual bibliography searches met inclusion criteria, totaling 33 studies. Data extraction: We reviewed identified articles for methodological quality using a modified Scale for Assessing Scientific Quality of Investigations (SASQI). We categorized a study as positive if the CAM therapy proved significantly more effective than an inactive control (or as effective as active control) on at least 1 primary psychological outcome. Positive and negative studies were compared on the following characteristics: CAM treatment category, symptom(s) assessed, country where the study was conducted, sample size, treatment duration, and mean sample age. Data synthesis: 67% of the 33 studies reviewed were positive. Positive studies had lower SASQI scores for methodology than negative studies. Mind-body and body-based therapies had somewhat higher rates of positive results than energy- or biologically-based therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies had substantial methodological limitations. A few well-conducted studies suggested therapeutic potential for certain CAM interventions in older adults (e.g., mind-body interventions for sleep disturbances and acupressure for sleep and anxiety). More rigorous research is needed, and suggestions for future research are summarized. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Purpose: Despite widespread popular use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, a rigorous evidence base about their efficacy for cancer-related pain is lacking. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CAM therapies for cancer-related pain. Methods: RCTs using CAM interventions for cancer-related pain were abstracted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane database. Results: Eighteen trials were identified (eight poor, three intermediate, and seven high quality based on Jadad score), with a total of 1,499 patients. Median sample size was 53 patients, and median intervention duration was 45 days. All studies were from single institutions, four had sample size justification, and none reported any adverse effects. Seven trials reported significant benefit for the following CAM therapies: acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal supplement/HESA-A (n = 1, but study was of low quality without control data). Seven studies reported immediate postintervention or short-term benefit of the following CAM interventions: acupuncture (n = 2), music (n = 1), herbal supplement/Ai-Tong-Ping (n = 1), massage (n = 1), and healing touch (n = 2). Four studies reported no benefit of CAM interventions (music, n = 2; massage, n = 2) in reducing cancer pain compared with a control arm. Conclusion: There is paucity of multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions for cancer pain with adequate power, duration, and sham control. Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and healing touch seem promising, particularly in the short term, but none can be recommended because of a paucity of rigorous trials. Future research should focus on methodologically strong RCTs to determine potential efficacy of these CAM interventions.
Disturbances in sleep and circadian rhythms are common among residents of long-term care facilities. In this systematic review, we aim to identify and evaluate the literature documenting the outcomes associated with non-pharmacological interventions to improve nighttime sleep among long-term care residents.
METHODS:
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guided searches of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) for articles reporting results of experimental or quasi-experimental studies conducted in long-term care settings (nursing homes, assisted-living facilities, or group homes) in which nighttime sleep was subjectively or objectively measured as a primary outcome. We categorized each intervention by its intended use and how it was administered.
RESULTS:
Of the 54 included studies evaluating the effects of 25 different non-pharmacological interventions, more than half employed a randomized controlled trial design (n = 30); the others used a pre-post design with (n = 11) or without (n = 13) a comparison group. The majority of randomized controlled trials were at low risk for most types of bias, and most other studies met the standard quality criteria. The interventions were categorized as environmental interventions (n = 14), complementary health practices (n = 12), social/physical stimulation (n = 11), clinical care practices (n = 3), or mind-body practices (n = 3). Although there was no clear pattern of positive findings, three interventions had the most promising results: increased daytime light exposure, nighttime use of melatonin, and acupressure.
CONCLUSIONS:
Non-pharmacological interventions have the potential to improve sleep for residents of long-term care facilities. Further research is needed to better standardize such interventions and provide clear implementation guidelines using cost-effective practices.
