Table 4.
Quality assessment of the included studies of dyadic interventions of the patient and his/her life partner when confronted with advanced cancer.
| References | Type of studies | Research question | Participants | Sources and methods | Tools | Ethics | Analyses | Participants (case report) | Quality (case report) | Study plan strength | Quality of study | Directness of evidence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mowll et al. (2015) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct | ||||||||
| Benzein and Saveman (2008) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct | ||||||||
| References | Type of studies | Participants (case report) | Quality (case report) | Conclusion | ||||||||||||||
| Lantz and Ahern (1998) McWilliams (2004) Reny (2020b) McLean and Nissim (2007) |
Descriptive (case report) Descriptive (case report) Descriptive (case report) Descriptive (case report) |
|
|
This case report suggests lines of thought relating to the phenomenon under study. It is necessary to carry out more robust studies in order to have a sufficient level of proof to validate the hypotheses put forward. | ||||||||||||||
| Clements-Cortes (2011) | Descriptive (case report) |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| References | Type of studies | Research question | Participants | Selection bias | Misclassification bias | Information bias | Tools | Storage and monitoring | Comparability | Confounding variables | Ethics | Analyses | Power and size effect | Generalization | Feasibility | Study plan strength | Quality of study | Directness of evidence |
| Mohr et al. (2003) | Analytique (ENCAA) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct |
| Wagner et al. (2016) | Analytique (ENCAA) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct |
| McLean et al. (2013) | Analytique (ECR) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High | High | Direct |
: strong/high
: moderate/medium
: weak/low