ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/192614/JST00003.pdf

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting

The widespread use of standardized health surveys is predicated on the largely untested assumption that scales constructed from those surveys will satisfy minimum psychometric requirements across diverse population groups. Data from the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) were used to evaluate data completeness and quality, test scaling assumptions, and estimate internal-consistency reliability for the eight scales constructed from the MOS SF-36 Health Survey. Analyses were conducted among 3,445 patients and were replicated across 24 subgroups differing in sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosis, and disease severity. For each scale, item-completion rates were high across all groups (88% to 95%), but tended to be somewhat lower among the elderly, those with less than a high school education, and those in poverty. On average, surveys were complete enough to compute scales scores for more than 96% of the sample. Across patient groups, all scales passed tests for item-internal consistency (97% passed) and item-discriminant validity (92% passed). Reliability coefficients ranged from a low of 0.65 to a high of 0.94 across scales (median = 0.85) and varied somewhat across patient subgroups. Floor effects were negligible except for the two role disability scales. Noteworthy ceiling effects were observed for both role disability scales and the social functioning scale. These findings support the use of the SF-36 survey across the diverse populations studied and identify population groups in which use of standardized health status measures may or may not be problematic.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3766189.pdf

The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)

The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(07)61415-9.pdf

Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: results from the World Health Surveys

The present study explored the degree to which patients prefer to become informed about and to participate in their medical care. A total of 256 cancer patients completed an Information Styles Questionnaire and the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Patients' behavior and beliefs were found to incorporate the contemporary standard of informed and active involvement. Significant age trends were found: The younger the patients, the more closely they conformed to the well-informed participant standard of patient behavior; the older the patients, the more likely they were to prefer the older, nonparticipatory patient role. Patients who wanted to be involved in treatment decisions were significantly more hopeful than others. Most patients in each age group displayed high levels of hope, preferences for open communication about their illness, and a desire for maximum amounts of information.

Information and participation preferences among cancer patients

We explored reasons for the failure of patients to recall major portions of the information on consent forms and in oral explanations about consent. Within one day of signing consent forms for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery, 200 cancer patients completed a test of their recall of the material in the consent explanation and filled out a questionnaire regarding their opinions of its purpose, content, and implications. Only 60 per cent understood the purpose and nature of the procedure, and only 55 per cent correctly listed even one major risk or complication. We found that three factors were related to inadequate recall: education, medical status, and the care with which patients thought they had read their consent forms before signing. Only 40 per cent of the patients had read the form "carefully." Most believed that consent forms were meant to "protect the physician's rights." Although most thought that consent forms were necessary and comprehensible and that they contained worthwhile information, the legalistic connotations of the forms appeared to lead to cursory reading and inadequate recall.

Informed consent -- why are its goals imperfectly realized?

Assumptions that psychological attributes are specific to particular diagnoses characterize many investigations of chronically ill patients. We studied 758 patients, each of whom had one of six different chronic illnesses, to determine and compare their scores on the Mental Health Index. Five groups of physically ill patients (with arthritis, diabetes, cancer, renal disease, or dermatologic disorders) did not differ significantly from one another or from the general public, but all had significantly higher scores for psychological status when compared with the sixth group, patients under treatment for depression. There was a significant direct relation between higher mental-health scores and advancing age across all patient populations. Patients with recently diagnosed illness in all groups had poorer mental-health scores than did patients whose illness had been diagnosed more than four months previously. A direct relation between declining physical status and mental-health scores was observed. These results suggest that psychological adaptation among patients with chronic illnesses is remarkably effective and fundamentally independent of specific diagnosis.

Psychosocial status in chronic illness. A comparative analysis of six diagnostic groups.

Prospective studies of the general population have isolated specific social and psychological factors as independent predictors of longevity. This study assesses the ability of these facto...

Psychosocial correlates of survival in advanced malignant disease

Purpose Spiritual well-being and sense of meaning are important concerns for clinicians who care for patients with cancer. We developed Individual Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy (IMCP) to address the need for brief interventions targeting spiritual well-being and meaning for patients with advanced cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with stage III or IV cancer (N = 120) were randomly assigned to seven sessions of either IMCP or therapeutic massage (TM). Patients were assessed before and after completing the intervention and 2 months postintervention. Primary outcome measures assessed spiritual well-being and quality of life; secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression, hopelessness, symptom burden, and symptom-related distress. Results Of the 120 participants randomly assigned, 78 (65%) completed the post-treatment assessment and 67 (56%) completed the 2-month follow-up. At the post-treatment assessment, IMCP participants demonstrated significantly greater improvement than the control condition for ...

Barrie R. Cassileth

Papers

Information and participation preferences among cancer patients

Informed consent -- why are its goals imperfectly realized?

Psychosocial status in chronic illness. A comparative analysis of six diagnostic groups.

Psychosocial correlates of survival in advanced malignant disease

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Individual Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Patients With Advanced Cancer