Improving the wellbeing of staff who work in palliative care settings: a systematic review of psychosocial interventions

Background: Staff in palliative care settings perform emotionally demanding roles which may lead to psychological distress including stress and burnout. Therefore, interventions have been designed to address these occupational risks.

Aim: To investigate quantitative studies exploring the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions that attempt to improve psychological wellbeing of palliative care staff.

Design: A systematic review was conducted according to methodological guidance from UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.

Data sources: A search strategy was developed based on the initial scans of palliative care studies. Potentially eligible research articles were identified by searching the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened studies against pre-set eligibility criteria. To assess quality, both researchers separately assessed the remaining studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.

Results: A total of 1786 potentially eligible articles were identified – nine remained following screening and quality assessment. Study types included two randomised controlled trials, two non-randomised controlled trial designs, four one-group pre–post evaluations and one process evaluation. Studies took place in the United States and Canada (5), Europe (3) and Hong Kong (1). Interventions comprised a mixture of relaxation, education, support and cognitive training and targeted stress, fatigue, burnout, depression and satisfaction. The randomised controlled trial evaluations did not improve psychological wellbeing of palliative care staff. Only two of the quasi-experimental studies appeared to show improved staff wellbeing although these studies were methodologically weak.

Conclusion: There is an urgent need to address the lack of intervention development work and high-quality research in this area.

Systematic review of tools to measure outcomes for young children with autism spectrum disorder

BACKGROUND: The needs of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are complex and this is reflected in the number and diversity of outcomes assessed and measurement tools used to collect evidence about children's progress. Relevant outcomes include improvement in core ASD impairments, such as communication, social awareness, sensory sensitivities and repetitiveness; skills such as social functioning and play; participation outcomes such as social inclusion; and parent and family impact.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the measurement properties of tools used to measure progress and outcomes in children with ASD up to the age of 6 years. To identify outcome areas regarded as important by people with ASD and parents.

METHODS: The MeASURe (Measurement in Autism Spectrum disorder Under Review) research collaboration included ASD experts and review methodologists. We undertook systematic review of tools used in ASD early intervention and observational studies from 1992 to 2013; systematic review, using the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) of papers addressing the measurement properties of identified tools in children with ASD; and synthesis of evidence and gaps. The review design and process was informed throughout by consultation with stakeholders including parents, young people with ASD, clinicians and researchers.

RESULTS: The conceptual framework developed for the review was drawn from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, including the domains 'Impairments', 'Activity Level Indicators', 'Participation', and 'Family Measures'. In review 1, 10,154 papers were sifted - 3091 by full text - and data extracted from 184; in total, 131 tools were identified, excluding observational coding, study-specific measures and those not in English. In review 2, 2665 papers were sifted and data concerning measurement properties of 57 (43%) tools were extracted from 128 papers. Evidence for the measurement properties of the reviewed tools was combined with information about their accessibility and presentation. Twelve tools were identified as having the strongest supporting evidence, the majority measuring autism characteristics and problem behaviour. The patchy evidence and limited scope of outcomes measured mean these tools do not constitute a 'recommended battery' for use. In particular, there is little evidence that the identified tools would be good at detecting change in intervention studies. The obvious gaps in available outcome measurement include well-being and participation outcomes for children, and family quality-of-life outcomes, domains particularly valued by our informants (young people with ASD and parents).

CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review of the quality and appropriateness of tools designed to monitor progress and outcomes of young children with ASD. Although it was not possible to recommend fully robust tools at this stage, the review consolidates what is known about the field and will act as a benchmark for future developments. With input from parents and other stakeholders, recommendations are made about priority targets for research.

FUTURE WORK: Priorities include development of a tool to measure child quality of life in ASD, and validation of a potential primary outcome tool for trials of early social communication intervention.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002223.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic Review of the Measurement Properties of Tools Used to Measure Behaviour Problems in Young Children with Autism

Background
Behaviour problems are common in young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There are many different tools used to measure behavior problems but little is known about their validity for the population.

Objectives
To evaluate the measurement properties of behaviour problems tools used in evaluation of intervention or observational research studies with children with ASD up to the age of six years.

Methods
Behaviour measurement tools were identified as part of a larger, two stage, systematic review. First, sixteen major electronic databases, as well as grey literature and research registers were searched, and tools used listed and categorized. Second, using methodological filters, we searched for articles examining the measurement properties of the tools in use with young children with ASD in ERIC, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The quality of these papers was then evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.

Results
We identified twelve tools which had been used to measure behaviour problems in young children with ASD, and fifteen studies which investigated the measurement properties of six of these tools. There was no evidence available for the remaining six tools. Two questionnaires were found to be the most robust in their measurement properties, the Child Behavior Checklist and the Home Situations Questionnaire—Pervasive Developmental Disorders version.

Conclusions
We found patchy evidence on reliability and validity, for only a few of the tools used to measure behaviour problems in young children with ASD. More systematic research is required on measurement properties of tools for use in this population, in particular to establish responsiveness to change which is essential in measurement of outcomes of intervention.

PROSPERO Registration Number

CRD42012002223