TY - JOUR
T1 - Recommended Physiotherapy Modalities for Oncology Patients with Palliative Needs and Its Influence on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review
AU - Gauchez, Luna
AU - Boyle, Shannon Lauryn L.
AU - Eekman, Shinfu Selena
AU - Harnie, Sarah
AU - Decoster, Lore
AU - Ginderdeuren, Filip Van
AU - Nys, Len De
AU - Adriaenssens, Nele
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 by the authors.
PY - 2024/10/1
Y1 - 2024/10/1
N2 - Background: This review aims to explore the role of physiotherapy in early and traditional palliative care (PC) for oncology patients, focusing on its impact on six patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), namely fatigue, pain, cachexia, quality of life (QoL), physical functioning (PHF), and psychosocial functioning (PSF). The purpose is to assess the effectiveness of various physiotherapy interventions and identify gaps in the current research to understand their potential benefits in PC better. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, concluding on 21 December 2023. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 was employed to assess the risk of bias, while the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, with most showing a high risk of bias, particularly in outcome measurement and missing data. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was the only intervention that significantly reduced fatigue, enhanced PHF, and improved QoL and emotional functioning. Graded exercise therapy (GET) did not yield significant results. Combined interventions, such as education with problem-solving or nutritional counseling with physical activity, showed no significant effects. Massage significantly improved QoL and reduced pain, while physical application therapies were effective in pain reduction. Mindful breathing exercises (MBE) improved QoL but had a non-significant impact on appetite. The overall certainty of the evidence was low. Conclusions: Physiotherapy can positively influence PROMs in oncology PC; however, the low quality and high risk of bias in existing studies highlight the need for more rigorous research to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice.
AB - Background: This review aims to explore the role of physiotherapy in early and traditional palliative care (PC) for oncology patients, focusing on its impact on six patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), namely fatigue, pain, cachexia, quality of life (QoL), physical functioning (PHF), and psychosocial functioning (PSF). The purpose is to assess the effectiveness of various physiotherapy interventions and identify gaps in the current research to understand their potential benefits in PC better. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, concluding on 21 December 2023. Two independent reviewers screened the articles for inclusion. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 was employed to assess the risk of bias, while the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, with most showing a high risk of bias, particularly in outcome measurement and missing data. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was the only intervention that significantly reduced fatigue, enhanced PHF, and improved QoL and emotional functioning. Graded exercise therapy (GET) did not yield significant results. Combined interventions, such as education with problem-solving or nutritional counseling with physical activity, showed no significant effects. Massage significantly improved QoL and reduced pain, while physical application therapies were effective in pain reduction. Mindful breathing exercises (MBE) improved QoL but had a non-significant impact on appetite. The overall certainty of the evidence was low. Conclusions: Physiotherapy can positively influence PROMs in oncology PC; however, the low quality and high risk of bias in existing studies highlight the need for more rigorous research to confirm these findings and guide clinical practice.
UR - https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16193371
U2 - 10.3390/cancers16193371
DO - 10.3390/cancers16193371
M3 - Article
VL - 16
JO - Cancers
JF - Cancers
SN - 2072-6694
IS - 19
M1 - 3371
ER -