IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i5-6p683-695.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration of the role of specialist nurses in the care of women with gynaecological cancer: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Olivia Cook
  • Meredith McIntyre
  • Katrina Recoche

Abstract

Aim and objective To evaluate the role and interventions used by specialist nurses in caring for women with gynaecological cancer. Background Evidence evaluating the efficacy of specialist nurses in the gynaecological‐oncology setting is limited and fragmented. Design Systematic review including both randomised controlled trials and nonrandomised studies. Methods Nine major databases were accessed from their date of inception to April 2013 with search results limited to publications from 1993–2013. Inclusion criteria were applied to select studies for review. Studies were critically appraised and assessment of the risk of bias performed. Data were extracted and compiled, with a narrative analysis undertaken. Results Nine studies (six randomised controlled trials and three nonrandomised studies) testing interventions by specialist nurses in the gynaecological‐oncology setting were included in the systematic review. Results for the randomised controlled trials and nonrandomised studies were reported separately to enable distinction between evidence levels. Risk of bias assessment revealed that the quality of the randomised controlled trials was mixed and highlighted the inherent flaws of nonrandomised study designs. Studies varied greatly in the type of intervention provided and the tools used to measure outcomes, contributing to mixed results. The review demonstrated some positive effects of interventions by specialist nurses for women with gynaecological cancer, although these must viewed in conjunction with the assessment of evidence quality. Conclusions This systematic review has contributed to our understanding of the patient‐centred aspects of the specialist nurse role in the gynaecological‐oncology setting and further research is required to evaluate the role overall. Relevance to clinical practice The review indicates that interventions that either encompassed all domains of care, involved telephone contact or were executed between diagnosis and the completion of treatment were the most successful.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivia Cook & Meredith McIntyre & Katrina Recoche, 2015. "Exploration of the role of specialist nurses in the care of women with gynaecological cancer: a systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5-6), pages 683-695, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:5-6:p:683-695
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12675
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12675?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Kobleder & Hanna Mayer & Larissa Gehrig & Beate Senn, 2017. "“Promoting continuity of care”—Specialist nurses’ role experiences in gynaecological oncology: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4890-4898, December.
    2. Natalie Williams & Georgia Griffin & Victoria Farrell & Yvonne L. Hauck, 2020. "Gaining insight into the supportive care needs of women experiencing gynaecological cancer: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9-10), pages 1684-1694, May.
    3. Pär Salander & Joakim Isaksson & Brith Granström & Göran Laurell, 2016. "Motives that head and neck cancer patients have for contacting a specialist nurse – an empirical study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(21-22), pages 3160-3166, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:5-6:p:683-695. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.