A systematic review : the effects of orientation programs for cancer patients and their family/carers

Objectives To assess the effects of information interventions which orient patients and their carers/family to a cancer care facility and the services available within the facility. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Methods We included studies evaluating the effect of an orientation intervention, compared with a control group which received usual care, or with trials comparing one orientation intervention with another orientation intervention. Results Four RCTs of 610 participants met the criteria for inclusion. Findings from two RCTs demonstrated significant benefits of the orientation intervention in relation to reduced levels of distress (mean difference (MD): −8.96, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): −11.79 to −6.13), but non-significant benefits in relation to the levels state anxiety levels (MD −9.77) (95%CI: −24.96 to 5.41). There are insufficient data on the other outcomes of interest. Conclusions This review has demonstrated the feasibility and some potential benefits of orientation interventions. There was a low level of evidence to suggest that orientation interventions can reduce distress in patients. However, other outcomes, including patient knowledge recall/satisfaction, remain inconclusive. The majority of trials were subjected to high risk of bias and were likely to be insufficiently powered. Further well conducted and powered RCTs are required to provide evidence for determining the most appropriate intensity, nature, mode and resources for such interventions. Patient and carer-focused outcomes should be included.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that children's decisions to smoke are influenced by family and friends. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members to strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We also searched unpublished material, and the reference lists of key articles. We performed both free-text Internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and we hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We also consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was performed in July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and family members to deter the use of tobacco. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed them for methodological quality. The studies were too limited in number and quality to undertake a formal meta-analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs of family interventions to prevent smoking. We identified five RCTs in Category 1 (minimal risk of bias on all counts); nine in Category 2 (a risk of bias in one or more areas); and five in Category 3 (risks of bias in design and execution such that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from the study).Considering the fourteen Category 1 and 2 studies together: (1) four of the nine that tested a family intervention against a control group had significant positive effects, but one showed significant negative effects; (2) one of the five RCTs that tested a family intervention against a school intervention had significant positive effects; (3) none of the six that compared the incremental effects of a family plus a school programme to a school programme alone had significant positive effects; (4) the one RCT that tested a family tobacco intervention against a family non-tobacco safety intervention showed no effects; and (5) the one trial that used general risk reduction interventions found the group which received the parent and teen interventions had less smoking than the one that received only the teen intervention (there was no tobacco intervention but tobacco outcomes were measured). For the included trials the amount of implementer training and the fidelity of implementation are related to positive outcomes, but the number of sessions is not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some well-executed RCTs show family interventions may prevent adolescent smoking, but RCTs which were less well executed had mostly neutral or negative results. There is thus a need for well-designed and executed RCTs in this area.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members by identifying and assessing RCT's that provide training, skills and support to family members to prevent smoking initiation. Hypothesis: This is an exploratory review, and only one hypothesis based on the literature review will be tested: "Interventions to help family members strengthen non-smoking attitudes and promote non-smoking by children and other family members are more effective in preventing children starting smoking than no intervention."

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents (Review)

Background There is evidence that family and friends influence children's decisions to smoke. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions to help families stop children starting smoking. Search methods We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL unpublished material, and key articles' reference lists. We performed free-text internet searches and targeted searches of appropriate websites, and hand-searched key journals not available electronically. We consulted authors and experts in the field. The most recent search was 3 April 2014. There were no date or language limitations. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions with children (aged 5-12) or adolescents (aged 13-18) and families to deter tobacco use. The primary outcome was the effect of the intervention on the smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline. Included trials had to report outcomes measured at least six months from the start of the intervention. Data collection and analysis We reviewed all potentially relevant citations and retrieved the full text to determine whether the study was an RCT and matched our inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted study data for each RCT and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect model. Main results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. The interventions were very heterogeneous in the components of the family intervention, the other risk behaviours targeted alongside tobacco, the age of children at baseline and the length of follow-up. Two interventions were tested by two RCTs, one was tested by three RCTs and the remaining 20 distinct interventions were tested only by one RCT. Twenty-three interventions were tested in the USA, two in Europe, one in Australia and one in India. The control conditions fell into two main groups: no intervention or usual care; or school-based interventions provided to all participants. These two groups of studies were considered separately. Most studies had a judgement of 'unclear' for at least one risk of bias criteria, so the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate. Although there was heterogeneity between studies there was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity in the results. We were unable to extract data from all studies in a format that allowed inclusion in a meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence family-based interventions had a positive impact on preventing smoking when compared to a no intervention control. Nine studies (4810 participants) reporting smoking uptake amongst baseline non-smokers could be pooled, but eight studies with about 5000 participants could not be pooled because of insufficient data. The pooled estimate detected a significant reduction in smoking behaviour in the intervention arms (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.84). Most of these studies used intensive interventions. Estimates for the medium and low intensity subgroups were similar but confidence intervals were wide. Two studies in which some of the 4487 participants already had smoking experience at baseline did not detect evidence of effect (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.17). Eight RCTs compared a combined family plus school intervention to a school intervention only. Of the three studies with data, two RCTS with outcomes for 2301 baseline never smokers detected evidence of an effect (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and one study with data for 1096 participants not restricted to never users at baseline also detected a benefit (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94). The other five studies with about 18,500 participants did not report data in a format allowing meta-analysis. One RCT also compared a family intervention to a school 'good behaviour' intervention and did not detect a difference between the two types of programme (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.38, n = 388). No studies identified any adverse effects of intervention. Authors' conclusions There is moderate quality evidence to suggest that family-based interventions can have a positive effect on preventing children and adolescents from starting to smoke. There were more studies of high intensity programmes compared to a control group receiving no intervention, than there were for other compairsons. The evidence is therefore strongest for high intensity programmes used independently of school interventions. Programmes typically addressed family functioning, and were introduced when children were between 11 and 14 years old. Based on this moderate quality evidence a family intervention might reduce uptake or experimentation with smoking by between 16 and 32%. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because effect estimates could not include data from all studies. Our interpretation is that the common feature of the effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting (which is usually defined as showing strong interest in and care for the adolescent, often with rule setting). This is different from authoritarian parenting (do as I say) or neglectful or unsupervised parenting.

Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents: Evidence and implications for public health

- P -General population, nonsmoking children (aged 5 to 12) and adolescents (aged 13 to 18) with their parents - I -Interventions with children and family members intended to deter tobacco use. Any components to change parenting behaviour, parental or sibling smoking behaviour, or family communication and interaction. - C -Usual practice, or a program of no family intervention - O -Smoking status of children who reported no use of tobacco at baseline.

Family-based interventions in preventing children and adolescents from using tobacco: A systematic review and meta-analysis

- Background Tobacco is the main preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Adolescent smoking is increasing in many countries with poorer countries following the earlier experiences of affluent countries. Preventing adolescents starting smoking is crucial to decreasing tobacco-related illness. - Objective To assess effectiveness of family-based interventions alone and combined with school-based interventions to prevent children and adolescents from initiating tobacco use. - Data Sources 14 bibliographic databases and the Internet, journals hand-searched, experts consulted. - Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Interventions Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with children or adolescents and families, interventions to prevent starting tobacco use, follow-up ≥ 6 months. - Study Appraisal/Synthesis methods Abstracts/titles independently assessed and data independently entered by two authors. Risk-of-bias assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. - Results Twenty-seven RCTs were included. Nine trials of never-smokers compared to a control provided data for meta-analysis. Family intervention trials had significantly fewer students who started smoking. Meta-analysis of twoRCTs of combined family and school interventions compared to school only, showed additional significant benefit. The common feature of effective high intensity interventions was encouraging authoritative parenting. - Limitations Only 14 RCTs provided data for meta-analysis (about 1/3 of participants). Of the 13 RCTs which did not provide data for meta-analysis eight compared a family intervention to no intervention and one found significant effects, and five compared a family + school intervention to a school intervention and none found additional significant effects. - Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings There is moderate quality evidence that family-based interventions prevent children and adolescents starting to smoke.

Family centred care: a review of qualitative studies

Aim. To review systematically qualitative studies, which were found during a literature search for a Cochrane systematic review of the use of family centred care in children's hospitals. Background. Family centred care has become a cornerstone of paediatric practice, however, its effectiveness is not known. No single definition exists, rather a list of elements that constitute family centred care. However, it is recognized to involve the parents in care planning for a child in health services. A new definition is presented here. Methods. The papers were found in wide range of databases, by hand searching and by contacting the authors where necessary, using terms given in detail in the protocol in the Cochrane Library, in 2004. Qualitative studies could not be used for statistical analysis, but are still important to the review and so are described separately in this paper. Results. Negotiation between staff and families, perceptions held by both parents and staff roles influenced the delivery of family centred care. A sub-theme of cost of family centred care to families and staffs was discovered and this included both financial and emotional costs. Conclusion. Further research is needed to generate evidence about family centred care in situations arising from modern models of care in which family centred care is thought to be an inherent part, but which leave families with the care of sick children with little or no support. Relevance to clinical practice. Family centred care is said to be used widely in practice. More research is needed to ensure that is it being implemented correctly.

The Expanded Human Kallikrein (KLK) gene family : genomic organisation, tissue specific expression and potential functions

The tissue kallikreins are serine proteases encoded by highly conserved multigene families. The rodent kallikrein (KLK) families are particularly large, consisting of 13 26 genes clustered in one chromosomal locus. It has been recently recognised that the human KLK gene family is of a similar size (15 genes) with the identification of another 12 related genes (KLK4-KLK15) within and adjacent to the original human KLK locus (KLK1-3) on chromosome 19q13.4. The structural organisation and size of these new genes is similar to that of other KLK genes except for additional exons encoding 5 or 3 untranslated regions. Moreover, many of these genes have multiple mRNA transcripts, a trait not observed with rodent genes. Unlike all other kallikreins, the KLK4-KLK15 encoded proteases are less related (25–44%) and do not contain a conventional kallikrein loop. Clusters of genes exhibit high prostatic (KLK2-4, KLK15) or pancreatic (KLK6-13) expression, suggesting evolutionary conservation of elements conferring tissue specificity. These genes are also expressed, to varying degrees, in a wider range of tissues suggesting a functional involvement of these newer human kallikrein proteases in a diverse range of physiological processes.

Work/Family Balance: HRM Policy and Practice in Australia

An employee's inability to balance work and family responsibilities has resulted in an increase in stress related illnesses. Historically, research into the nexus between work and family has primarily focused on the work/family conflict relationship, predominately investigating the impact of this conflict on parents, usually mothers. To date research has not sufficiently examined the human resource management practices that enable all parents to achieve a balance between their work and family lives. This paper explores the relationship between contemporary family friendly HRM policies and employed parents perceptions of work/family enhancement, work/family satisfaction, propensity to turnover, and work/family conflict. Self-report questionnaire data from 326 men and women is analysed and discussed to enable organisations to consider the use of family friendly policies and thus create a convergence between the well-being of employees and the effectiveness of the organisation.