TY - JOUR
T1 - Adjusted indirect and mixed comparisons of interventions for the patient-reported outcomes measures (Proms) of disabled adults
T2 - A systematic review and network meta-analysis
AU - Xu, Yining
AU - Li, Xin
AU - Sun, Zhihong
AU - Song, Yang
AU - Baker, Julien
AU - Gu, Yaodong
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This study was sponsored by the Major Program of the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 19ZDA352), National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFF0300905), Ningbo University Student Research and Innovation Programme (IF2020045) and K. C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University.
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - This systematic review adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) guidelines and used the method of network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different types of interventions from different perspectives which were abilities of daily life activity, psychological health, social functioning, and overall life quality. The eligi-bility criteria were: (1) Participants were adults above 18 years old with disabilities; (2) Interventions could be classified into active exercise, passive therapy, psychological education, psychosocial support program, multi-disciplinary program, and usual care; (3) Outcomes should be the patient-re-ported outcome measures (PROMs) that could be classified into abilities of daily life activity, psychological health, social functioning, and overall life quality; (4) Randomized designed and pub-lished in English. The keywords and their search field were: (1) “people with disabilities/disability”, “disabled”, “handicapped”, or “disable people” in titles or abstracts; (2) AND “randomized” or “randomised” in titles or abstracts; (3) NOT ”design”, “protocol”, or “review” in titles. After search-ing in databases of Medline (EBSCO), PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid, 16 studies were included. As a result, active exercise and passive therapy are most likely to be the best interventions for overall life quality, psychological education and passive therapy are most likely to be the best interventions for abilities of daily life activity, and psychosocial support programs are most likely to be the best intervention for psychological health and social functioning.
AB - This systematic review adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) guidelines and used the method of network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different types of interventions from different perspectives which were abilities of daily life activity, psychological health, social functioning, and overall life quality. The eligi-bility criteria were: (1) Participants were adults above 18 years old with disabilities; (2) Interventions could be classified into active exercise, passive therapy, psychological education, psychosocial support program, multi-disciplinary program, and usual care; (3) Outcomes should be the patient-re-ported outcome measures (PROMs) that could be classified into abilities of daily life activity, psychological health, social functioning, and overall life quality; (4) Randomized designed and pub-lished in English. The keywords and their search field were: (1) “people with disabilities/disability”, “disabled”, “handicapped”, or “disable people” in titles or abstracts; (2) AND “randomized” or “randomised” in titles or abstracts; (3) NOT ”design”, “protocol”, or “review” in titles. After search-ing in databases of Medline (EBSCO), PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid, 16 studies were included. As a result, active exercise and passive therapy are most likely to be the best interventions for overall life quality, psychological education and passive therapy are most likely to be the best interventions for abilities of daily life activity, and psychosocial support programs are most likely to be the best intervention for psychological health and social functioning.
KW - Disabled
KW - Handicap
KW - Network meta-analysis
KW - Patient-reported outcome measures
KW - People with disabilities
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101726443&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ijerph18052406
DO - 10.3390/ijerph18052406
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33804553
AN - SCOPUS:85101726443
SN - 1661-7827
VL - 18
JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
IS - 5
M1 - 2406
ER -
