Bereavement needs assessment in specialist palliative care: A review of the literature

Bereavement needs assessment for specialist palliative care services has been highlighted as important by NICE guidance on palliative care for adults with cancer. Identifying and implementing appropriate bereavement measurement tools has remained a challenge. This paper identifies and reviews bereavement measurement tools to determine their suitability for use within bereavement services and hospice settings. Cochrane, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL, electronic databases were searched, yielding 486 papers. From fifty-nine full text papers appraised, 10 measurement tools were analysed in detail. Some tools had been tested on specific populations which limited transferability to specialist palliative care settings; some lacked adequate theoretical links and were not effective in discriminating between normal and complicated grief reactions; and some lacked clear evidence of validity or reliability. Based on these criteria, conclusions are drawn about the suitability of particular tools for UK bereavement services and hospice settings where intervention is delivered by both trained professionals and volunteers.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

Systematic review of reviews of risk factors for intracranial aneurysms

Systematic reviews of systematic reviews identify good quality reviews of earlier studies of medical conditions. This article describes a systematic review of systematic reviews performed to investigate factors that might influence the risk of rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. It exemplifies the technique of this type of research and reports the finding of a specific study. The annual incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage resulting from the rupture of intracranial aneurysms is estimated to be nine per 100,000. A large proportion of people who have this bleed, will die or remain dependent on the care of others for some time. Reliable knowledge about the risks of subarachnoid haemorrhage in different populations will help in planning, screening and prevention strategies and in predicting the prognosis of individual patients. If the necessary data were available in the identified reviews, an estimate for the numerical relationship between a particular characteristic and the risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage was included in this report. The identification of eligible systematic reviews relied mainly on the two major bibliographic databases of the biomedical literature: PubMed and EMBASE. These were searched in 2006, using specially designed search strategies. Approximately 2,000 records were retrieved and each of these was checked carefully against the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. These criteria required that the report be a systematic review of studies assessing the risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage in patients known to have an unruptured intracranial aneurysm or of studies that had investigated the characteristics of people who experienced a subarachnoid haemorrhage without previously being known to have an unruptured aneurysm. Reports which included more than one systematic review were eligible and each of these reviews was potentially eligible. The quality of each systematic review was assessed. In this review, 16 separate reports were identified, including a total of 46 eligible systematic reviews. These brought together research studies for 24 different risk factors. This has shown that the following factors appear to be associated with a higher risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage: being a woman, older age, posterior circulation aneurysms, larger aneurysms, previous symptoms,

AA and the Redeployment of Temperance Literature

This essay is an examination that, primarily comparativist in its approach, links publication materials from the temperance and Prohibition periods with the Big Book to show how AA's narrative antidotes to the traumas of modernity (sited in alcohol abuse) were as much the product of premodernist and turn-of-the-century hysteria as they were an attempt to write a new chapter in America's relationship with alcohol based on contemporary medical and social research.