Inclusion criteria
Types of participants
The quantitative component of this review will consider studies that identify changes in outcomes in healthcare providers in the acute care oncology setting, as the result of applied structured interventions to decrease compassion fatigue. The qualitative component of this review will consider studies that assess the experiences of healthcare providers in the acute care oncology setting that identify changes in outcomes as the result of applied structured interventions to decrease compassion fatigue and the appropriateness of these interventions.
Types of intervention
The quantitative component of the review will consider and compare studies that utilize a compassion fatigue scale to evaluate the effectiveness of structured interventions implemented by nurse leaders to decrease compassion fatigue.
Phenomena of interest
The qualitative component of this review will consider studies that investigate the meaningfulness and appropriateness of structured interventions by nurse leaders to decrease compassion fatigue among healthcare providers in acute care oncology settings.
Types of outcomes
This review will consider studies that include the following outcome measures: those identified as directly attributable to structured interventions by nurse leaders for the purpose of decreasing compassion fatigue among healthcare providers in acute care oncology settings. Specific outcomes may include improved patient satisfaction, staff retention, employee engagement, morale, rates of absenteeism, quality, productivity, employee relationships, team concept and organizational cultures.
Types of studies
The quantitative component of the review will consider both experimental and epidemiological study designs including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies and analytical cross sectional studies for inclusion. The quantitative component of the review will also consider descriptive epidemiological study designs including case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross sectional studies for inclusion. The qualitative component of the review will consider interpretive studies that draw on the experiences of healthcare providers with compassion fatigue including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.
In the absence of research studies, other texts such as expert opinion, discussion papers and position papers will be considered for inclusion in the review.
Search strategy
The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search strategy will be utilized in this review. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken, followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract and of the index terms used to describe the article. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference lists of all identified reports and articles will be searched for additional studies. Studies published from 1980 to July 2013 will be considered for inclusion in this review, as the term 'compassion fatigue' was initially used in 1981 in reference to events surrounding the United States Immigration Policy. The databases to be searched include:
CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, ProQuest Nursing, Allied Health Source and EMBASE.
The search for unpublished studies will include:
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Initial keywords to be used will be:
Compassion, compassion fatigue, compassion fatigue scale, compassionate care, self-awareness, self-care, self-compassion, burnout, grief, traumatic stress disorder, oncology and intervention.
All studies identified during the database search will be assessed for relevance to the review based on the information provided in the title, abstract, and descriptor/MeSH terms. A full report will be retrieved for all studies that meet the inclusion criteria (see appendix I). Studies identified from reference list searches will be assessed for relevance based on the study title and reported within a checklist in the appendices.
Assessment of methodological quality
Quantitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) (Appendix 1). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.
Qualitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review, using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI) (Appendix 1). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.
Textual papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for authenticity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Narrative, Opinion and Text Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-NOTARI) (Appendix 1). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.
Data collection
Quantitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI (Appendix 2). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.
Qualitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-QARI (Appendix 2). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.
Textual data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-NOTARI (Appendix 2). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.
Data synthesis
Quantitative papers will, where possible be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using JBI-MAStARI. All results will be subject to double data entry. Effect sizes expressed as odds ratios (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed statistically using the standard chi-square test and also explored using subgroup analyses based on the different quantitative study designs included in this review. Where statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.
Qualitative research findings will, where possible, be pooled using JBI-QARI. This will involve the aggregation or synthesis of findings to generate a set of statements that represent that aggregation, through assembling the findings (Level 1 findings) rated according to their quality and categorizing these findings on the basis of similarity in meaning (Level 2 findings). These categories are then subjected to a meta-synthesis in order to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings (Level 3 findings) that can be used as a basis for evidence-based practice. Where textual pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form.
Textual papers will be pooled using JBI-NOTARI. This will involve the aggregation or synthesis of conclusions to generate a set of statements that represent that aggregation, through assembling and categorizing these conclusions on the basis of similarity in meaning. These categories are then subjected to a meta-synthesis in order to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings that can be used as a basis for evidence-based practice. Where textual pooling is not possible, the conclusions will be presented in narrative form.
Conflicts of interest
No conflict of interest is anticipated.
Acknowledgements
None to declare.
References