Methodological Complexities Associated with Systematic Review of Health Relationships

Published in: Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, v. 16, no. 5, Sep./Oct. 2010, p. 46-57

by Barbara Findlay, Katherine Smith, Cindy C. Crawford, Ian D. Coulter, Raheleh Khorsan, Wayne B. Jonas

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.scribd.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Background/Context: There is growing recognition within the field of medicine that healing and healing relationships are important and that developing evidence-based medicine approaches to healing should be an important aspect of this emerging field, including the use of systematic reviews. Health care leaders charges with developing healing initiatives in hospitals often are frustrated in their attempts to find rigorous reviews of the literature to support their programs. Objective: The objective of this project was to conduct a systematic review that asked, "What is the return on investment to hospitals that implement programs aimed at enhancing healing relationships?" Methods: A comprehensive literature search using several electronic databases was conducted to locate studies that evaluated hospital-based programs involving "healing relationships." All studies found were evaluated as to their relevance to the study and screened for methodological quality. Result: Research investigators found broad heterogeneity across the 80 included studies with regard to stated aims, target populations, outcomes measured, measurement tools employed, and evaluation methods used. Only 10 articles were categorized as being methodologically strong. Conclusions: Results of the systematic review highlighted challenges in synthesizing knowledge about healing that included absence of widely accepted definitions and language around "healing," locating literature published across many different disciplines, and absence of standards for conducting rigorous program evaluations in hospitals. A less formal qualitative review of included studies also revealed themes in the literature that provide clues about the professional, social, cultural, and historical influences that have helped to shape the evidence base to date.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.