BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2020 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 4513719 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4513719

Ngou In Pang, Ruixue Bie, Carolina Oi Lam Ung, Hao Hu, "Development and Validation of a Logic Model for Utilization of Nutrition Support among Patients with Cancer", BioMed Research International, vol. 2020, Article ID 4513719, 10 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4513719

Development and Validation of a Logic Model for Utilization of Nutrition Support among Patients with Cancer

Academic Editor: Gabriela M Wilson
Received03 Feb 2020
Revised22 Apr 2020
Accepted29 May 2020
Published25 Jun 2020

Abstract

Cancer is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and about one in six people die from cancer globally. Approximately 20% to 70% of cancer patients are accompanied with malnutrition, and nutrition support plays an important role among cancer patients. However, the utilization of nutrition support is generally irrational in clinical practices and it is affected by multiple factors. Logic models not only present a framework to improve intervention of health care setting but also identify all the elements, pathways, outcomes, and their relationships between systems. This study developed a logic model of nutrition support for cancer patients based on current literature and conducted interview with medical staff in Macao to validate the logic model. In addition, suggestions were given as references to improve the utilization of nutrition support among cancer patients.

1. Introduction

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death, and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 9.6 million people die from cancer globally in 2018. Approximately 20% to 70% of cancer patients are accompanied with malnutrition [13]. Nutrition support including enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) not only reduces the complications rates and medical cost but also improves the clinical outcomes of cancer patients, such as body mass index (BMI), immune function, and infection [47]. Therefore, nutrition support has played an important role for cancer patients.

To improve and standardize the utilization of nutrition support for cancer patients, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) published two guidelines, “ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients” in 2016 and “ESPEN expert group recommendations for action against cancer related malnutrition” in 2017 [8, 9], and the Chinese Society and Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (CSPEN) published the guideline, “Guidelines on nutrition support in patients with tumor” in 2017 [10]. However, there are gaps between the utilization of nutrition support in clinical and guidelines, such as the choice, routes, and dosages of nutrition support. A study showed that PN was not used in compliance with guidelines in hospital practice [11]. There were regional, departmental, and disease-based differences in the selection of PN versus EN in Chinese hospitals [12]. Many studies showed that PN was the dominant nutritional mode and the utilization of PN should be improved and guided in Chinese hospitals [13, 14]. On the other hand, cancer patients at difference disease stages with different therapies meet different nutrition needs, and the starting point of nutrition support should be well considered. In addition, the cooperation, attitude, and knowledge of participants, such as physicians and nutritionists, involved in nutrition support among cancer patients, are some of the challenges of utilization of nutrition support [1517].

As utilization of nutrition support among cancer patients is such a complex problem, it is necessary to figure out the elements of nutrition support and its multiple outcomes. Logic model as a graphical representation can be used to construct frameworks to improve intervention and implementation of health care problems [18, 19]. Logic models are used to conceptualize complex systems, as they not only identify all the components and their relationships between systems but also display the pathways between interventions and outcomes [20, 21]. It is useful and timesaving for researchers to construct logic models for making hypothesis as logic models can reduce the time from start of planning to real practice [22]. There are various types of logic models, such as system-based logic model and process-orientated logic model. System-based logic models present the comprehensive perspective of the system and depict the interactions between interventions and its participants and where it takes place within the system [23]. It is useful to understand the relationship between various interventions in the system through system-based logic models.

To our knowledge, there is no study that presented a logic model of nutrition support for cancer patients. Thus, this study is aimed at developing a logic model of nutrition support for cancer patients based on current literature and conducting interview with medical staff in Macao to validate the logic model. In addition, suggestions are given as references to improve the utilization of nutrition support among cancer patients.

2. Method

2.1. Research Design and Ethics

This study combined systematic review and qualitative interview to develop and validate the logic model.

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Macau (MYRG2018-00012-ICMS).

2.2. Collecting Relevant Literature

To collect relevant literature, we conducted literature search in 3 databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, using the following search terms: “nutrition” OR “nutritional” OR “artificial nutrition” OR “nutritional intervention” OR“nutrition intervention” OR “nutrition care” OR “nutrition support” OR “enteral nutrition” OR “parenteral nutrition” AND “cancer” OR “tumor” OR “oncology”.

Literature search was limited to English articles with a time span of 5 years (2014 to 2018), and human was the targeted experimental object. The literature was screened by two reviewers. The two reviewers selected the literature based on the title and abstract at the first-round selection. After the first-round selection, the second-round selection was based on the context.

Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with cancer, whether which types of cancer and disease stages, with or without complication and surgery; (2) patients with cancer receiving nutrition support (enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, or single/mixed nutritional ingredient); (3) having outcomes related to the patients with cancer and caused by nutrition support directly or indirectly.

There were 30 published literatures [2453] that provided information about nutrition support and cancer after removal of duplicates and exclusion of irrelevant literature.

2.3. Construction of the Logic Model

For the system-based logic model, PICO framework [54, 55] was used to define the components and research questions, including four elements: participants (P), interventions (I), comparisons (C), and outcomes (O) (see Table 1).


PICO

PopulationWhich population are the target population and its information?
Patients with cancer receiving nutrition support. Demographic information of cancer patients.
InterventionWhat kind of intervention will be performed among cancer patients?
Activities related to nutrition and performed among cancer patients and that caused specific outcomes.
ComparisonHow to conduct comparison?
Difference based on the actions or changes.
OutcomesWhich types of outcomes will be caused? Positive or negative?
Changes that were caused by specific actions directly or indirectly, such as biochemical index, mortality, length of hospital stay, quality of life, and medical cost.

After defining the components of the logic model, we added the elements obtained through literature into the system-based logic model.

2.4. Validation of Logic Model

To validate the logic model, an interview was conducted in this study. Interviewees were the medical staff who have worked directly in the field of cancer and nutrition at least 1 year in Macao, and three medical staff participated in the interview.

Invitation letter and consent letter were sent to potential interviewees before the interview. At the beginning of the interview, interviewees were told the introduction and research objective about this study and asked for the permission to tape-record the interview. The interview included three parts: overview, practice and barriers, and solutions and suggestions about nutrition support among cancer patients.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Analysis

A total of 30 literatures were included in this study; 13 of their study design were mixed methods, followed by randomized trial (RT) and randomized controlled trial (RCT) (see Table 2). 12 literatures were published in 2017, and 10 literatures were published in 2015.


DesignNumberPapers

Randomized controlled trial (RCT)5Zhao et al. (2017), Obling et al. (2017), Cereda et al. (2018), Kabata et al. (2015), Hatao et al. (2017)
Randomized trial (RT)6Takesue et al. (2015), Okada et al. (2017), De Luis et al. (2015), Sánchez-Lara et al. (2014), Gavazzi et al. (2016), Vidal et al. (2016)
Longitudinal study1Vashi et al. (2014)
Observational study1Brown et al. (2017)
Interview1Cohen et al. (2017)
Questionnaire1Santarpia and Bozzetti (2018)
Cohort study1Shenep et al. (2017)
Single/double/multicenter study1Senesse et al. (2015)
Mixed method13Wang et al. (2015), Bowrey et al. (2015), Wang et al. (2018), Yu et al. (2017), Jin et al. (2018), Ding et al. (2015), Yang et al. (2015), Li et al. (2015), Cotogni et al. (2017), Kobayashi et al. (2017), Miyata et al. (2017), Li et al. (2015), Mendivil et al. (2017)
Total30

According to the PICO framework, the elements of the selected literature included demographic information, cancer types, disease stages, surgery, treatments, participants, nutrition types, nutrition routes, timing, duration, health outcomes, nonhealth outcomes, adverse reaction, and setting (see Table 3).


ElementsContents

Demographic information(i) Gender
(ii) Age
Cancer types(i) (Incurable/upper/primary/secondary) gastrointestinal cancer, esophageal cancer, esophageal cancer, rectal carcinoma, colon carcinoma, duodenal carcinoma
(ii) (Advanced-stage epithelial) ovarian cancer, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer, pancreatic carcinoma, appendix cancer, head and neck cancer, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, hepatic carcinoma, bladder cancer
(iii) Abdominal cavity malignancy, cancer-related cachexia, pediatric oncology
Disease stages(i) Stages I–IV, advanced stage
Surgery(i) Thoracic surgery
(ii) Elective esophagectomy, esophageal resection
(iii) Total gastrectomy, radical gastrectomy
(iv) Elective major gastrointestinal tract surgery, bowel resection
(v) Ablative surgery, extended pelvic lymphadenectomy, radical cystectomy, cytoreductive surgery, debulking surgery
Treatments(i) Chemotherapy (systemic, neoadjuvant), hormonal therapy, paclitaxel and cisplatin/carboplatin treatment, radiotherapy (plus systemic treatment), surgical therapy
Participants(i) Patient, home health nurse, caregiver, physician, family member, nutrition team, nutritionist, general practitioner, oncologist, medical, nursing and allied health staff, dietitian, psychologist, speech pathologist, radiation oncologist, and medical oncologist.
Nutrition types(i) EN: enteral nutritional emulsion (TPF-T), isocaloric and isonitrogenous enteral formula, protein EN powder, home enteral nutrition (HEN), omega-3-rich EN
(ii) PN: home parenteral nutrition (HPN), total parenteral nutrition (TPN), supplemental home parenteral nutrition (sHPN)
(iii) Other: fiber-free/enriched/and probiotic-enriched nutrition formula, low-nitrogen and low-calorie PN combined with EN
Nutrition routes(i) EN: nutrition pump, jejunostomy feeding, oral, electronic pump, peripheral intravenous infusion, nasal-intestinal tube, intraoperatively placed nasogastric tube, enteral feeding tube, oral feeding, transnasal tube
(ii) PN: central venous catheter, subcutaneous port, external central venous catheter, peripheral-venous route, gastrostomy tube, peripherally inserted central catheter
Timing(i) No specific
(ii) No more than 7 days prior to chemotherapy administration, after the first chemotherapy cycle, and after the second chemotherapy cycle, day 3 before the initiation of chemotherapy to day 12 of chemotherapy
(iii) Preoperation: 1 day, 1 week
(iv) Day of surgery
(v) Postoperation: 24, 48, and 48-72 hours, 7 days, the day that the patient began eating a postoperative diet
Duration(i) Days: 2-14
(ii) Weeks: 1-6
(iii) Months: 2-6
Health outcomes(i) Complication rates (postoperative, jejunostomy tube)
(ii) Nutritional status nutritional assessment
(iii) Clinical, biochemical, laboratory, and hematological parameters, blood chemistry
(iv) Anthropometrics, e.g., body weight, body composition, rate of weight loss, fat free mass index, fat free mass, handgrip strength, muscle strength, six-minute walking test, protein-calorie intake, and caloric intake
(v) Oncological outcomes (short-/long-term), e.g., chemotherapy-related toxicities, response to chemotherapy and survival, and anticancer treatment tolerance
(vi) Functional outcomes, e.g., functional status (Karnofsky performance status (KPS)), immune function, liver function indexes, intestinal function recovery, functional capacity, bowel movement recovery, and restoration of bowel function
(vii) Inflammatory markers, such as tumor necrosis factor- (TNF-) a and interleukin- (IL-) 6, immunoglobulins, CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and natural killer cells, albumin and prealbumin, hemoglobin, inflammatory response, and duration of systematic inflammatory response syndrome
(viii) Quality of life (generic and disease-specific), e.g., physical/role/emotional functioning, appetite loss, and fatigue
(ix) Other, e.g., days for first fecal passage, blood glucose (BG) values, adherence to nutrition support, and phase angle
Nonhealth outcomes(i) Length of hospital stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, hospital readmission rates
(ii) Cost of hospitalization, cost-effectiveness, initial hospitalization cost
(iii) Attitude, impact, information, support, and clinical management regarding nutrition support
(iv) Experiences of living jejunostomy tube and home feeding, level of family strain, psychological status
Adverse reactions(i) Abdominal pain, vomiting/nausea, anastomotic fistula, and abdominal distension, oral mucositis, diarrhea, bloodstream infection, catheter occlusion, drug extravasation, intravascular thrombosis, bleeding, exudates, swelling, induration
Setting(i) Different timing/duration (preoperation versus postoperation)
(ii) Different dose and intensity (rich/free fiber formula)
(iii) Different nutrition types (EN versus PN)
(iv) Different routes (nasoenteral feeding tube versus intravenous infusion)
(v) Different care/counselling (standard care versus nutrition care)
(vi) Different nutrition support versus control (EN versus placebo)

3.2. First Version of the Logic Model

The logic model included seven parts: population, participants, intervention design, execution, intervention delivery, outcomes, and setting (see Figure 1).

Population comprised patient’s demographic information and medical information, such as disease stages and treatments. Participants included all the people involved in nutrition support for cancer patients.

Intervention design was divided into methodology and nutrition types. Execution included timing and duration of nutrition support. Many starting points were related to surgery, such as the day preoperative or postoperative. Intervention delivery was the routes of EN and PN.

Outcomes were divided to health outcomes, nonhealth outcomes, and adverse reaction. Nutrition support can affect various health outcomes, such as complication rates, nutritional parameters, anthropometrics, oncological outcomes, and quality of life. The nonhealth outcomes included length of hospital stay, cost of hospitalization, and the psychological status. However, there were some adverse reactions caused by nutrition support, such as diarrhea, vomiting, bloodstream infection, and anastomotic fistula.

Settings can be divided to different timing/duration (preoperation versus postoperation), dose and intensity (rich/free fiber formula), nutrition types (EN versus PN), routes (nasoenteral feeding tube versus intravenous infusion), care/counselling (standard care versus nutrition care), and nutrition support versus control (EN versus placebo).

3.3. Second Version of the Logic Model

Based on the first version of the logic model, the second version of the logic model was developed after the interview. In the second versions of the logic model, the underlined elements in participants, nutrition types, timing, nutrition routes, health outcomes, nonhealth outcomes, and adverse reactions were emphasized by interviewees (see Figure 2).

In the second version of the logic model, participants including nutritionist, physician, family member, caregiver, and nursing and allied health staff were emphasized. EN was mainly given by oral, nasogastric tube, and nasojejunal tube, and PN was given via a central venous catheter and peripherally inserted central catheter. Many starting points of nutrition support were related to treatments and patient’s nutrition status, and nutrition support is always accompanied with nutrition counselling.

For outcomes, clinical parameters, biochemical parameters, hematological parameters, rehabilitation progress, and anthropometrics, such as body weight and BMI, were the emphasized health outcomes. The nonhealth outcomes focused on the experiences and attitudes about nutrition support of cancer patients and length of hospital stay. The emphasized adverse reactions were abdominal pain, distension, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea.

3.4. Barriers and Suggestions of Nutrition Support

According to the literature and interview, this pilot study summarized the barriers of nutrition support among cancer patients and gave some suggestions for different populations, including policy maker, hospital, medical staff, and researcher (see Tables 4 and 5).


BarriersPossible reason

Misunderstanding of nutrition supportMany cancer patients and their families ignored the importance of nutrition support and misunderstand its effects.
Economic factorsCancer therapies are long-term and costly.
The nutrition products covered by social insurance are a priority to use in clinical practice, and the number of EN products covered by social insurance is less than that of PN products [57].
Lack of standard guidelinesThe adherence to the guidelines published by nutritional institutions needs to be improved, and the medical staff want more detailed and practical guidance.
Over workloadNutrition support always accompanies with long-term nutrition counselling for cancer patients during the whole therapy program, and it takes lot of human resource.
Loss of appetiteMany cancer patients will lose their appetites and need regular nutrition assessment and adjustment of nutrition support.


PopulationSuggestions

Policy makerTo update nutrition product in basic medical insurance drug catalogue regularly.
To organize professionals to develop guidelines for standard utilization of nutrition support among cancer patients.
HospitalTo provide regular trainings and consistent and useful guidance.
To set up guidance to strengthen cooperation and communication between medical staff and introduce more nutritional supplements from foreign hospitals.
Medical staffTo refer cancer patients and their families to nutritionists before utilization of nutrition support.
To discuss and provide several nutrition support for cancer patients.
ResearchersTo consider how to transfer the research findings to clinical practice efficiently.
To try more applications for conferences or workshops.
To improve the communication and cooperation between researchers and institutions.

One of the barriers of nutrition support in clinical practice is misunderstanding of the cancer patients and their families. Medical staff can refer cancer patients and their families to the nutritionists before receiving nutrition support so as to enhance their adherence to nutrition support. Nutrition support is always accompanied with long-term nutrition counselling for cancer patients and their families, and it takes lot of human resource and time which causes over workload. Hospitals should set up guidance to strengthen cooperation and communication between medical staff.

Economic factors, such as price and economic condition, are another barrier of nutrition support. The nutrition products involved in basic medical insurance drug catalogue should be regularly updated, and medical staff should try to understand the patient’s financial situation and provide several nutrition support for cancer patients and their families.

4. Discussion

A system-based logic model of nutrition support for cancer patients was developed and validated by medical staff in this pilot study. The logic model was widely used to improve health problems. However, studies about the logic model of nutrition support for cancer patients were not conducted in the literature. The logic model was developed and validated in this study as it can serve as a tool to present a framework of nutrition support among cancer patients objectively and visually, and the elements involved in the logic model covered the main elements of nutrition support among cancer patients including seven parts: population, participants, intervention design, execution, intervention delivery, outcomes, and setting. This visual and descriptive model can function as a tool that facilitates communication and understanding between the different stakeholders in order to assist clinicians and hospital management in the process of nutrition support and standardize the implementation of nutrition support in clinical practice.

For this study, the first version of the logic model which was based on the current literature presented the basic elements of nutrition support for cancer patients. Furthermore, the second version of logic model was developed by combining the first version of the logic model and the interviews with medical staff in Macao. Comparatively, some elements in participants, nutrition types, timing, nutrition routes, health outcomes, nonhealth outcomes, and adverse reactions were added in the second version of the logic model. These elements reflected a more realistic operation of cancer nutrition care.

The elements emphasized in the second version of the logic model may be due to the human resource. The region with more medical resource and higher-level hospital owns adequate human resource which causes more medical staff to participate in the program of nutrition support and clear division of labor. For example, it is said that nurses were ideal to promote nutritional behaviors to cancer patients when dieticians or nutritionists were limited in Australia and New Zealand [56].

The types, routes, and timing of nutrition support emphasized may be caused by the gap between study and clinical practices. Only a limited number of EN and PN are widely used in clinical practice, and not every cancer patient undergoes surgery though many studies focus on the nutrition support for cancer patients with surgeries and conduct interventions with different timing related to surgery.

Health outcomes which were easy to be recorded, such as biochemical and hematological parameters, rehabilitation progress, and body weight, were emphasized by medical staff. The emphasized nonhealth outcomes focused on the experiences and attitudes about nutrition support of cancer patients, psychological status, and level of family strain because they can affect the patient’s adherence to nutrition support. Adverse reactions caused by nutrition support were seldom observed solely, and it may be caused by other factors, such as cancer therapies and drugs.

There were also some barriers of nutrition support in practice. Based on the literature, economic factors [57], low adherence to guidelines [11, 58], and behavior of medical staff [1517] are the barriers of nutrition support. In this study, medical staff in Macao mentioned other barriers of nutrition support, including misunderstanding of the cancer patients and their families, lack of standard guidelines, over workload, and loss of appetite of cancer patients. In addition, medical staff emphasized that the interaction between cancer patients and medical staff played an important role. Many cancer patients misunderstand the importance of nutrition support and even refuse to receive nutrition support. Thus, nutrition support is always accompanied with nutrition counselling for cancer patients and their families during the whole therapy.

Although there were guidelines of nutrition support for cancer patients [810], some medical staff lack related knowledge and there are no guidance or guidelines provided from hospitals. Hospitals should provide guidance and regular trainings for medical staff, especially opportunity for training out in order to communicate with professionals in different places and learn new technology.

The views of nutrition support have changed rapidly during the past decades [59]; policy makers and researchers should strengthen cooperation to standard utilization of nutrition support among cancer patients, such as organizing professionals to develop guidelines. For instance, ESPEN established terminology consensus for terminology of nutritional concepts and procedures as difference of opinion about terminology limits the development of clinical nutrition practice and research [60, 61]. On the other hand, researchers should consider how to transfer the research findings to clinical practice efficiently so as to narrow the gaps between theoretical studies and clinical practice in nutrition support. Furthermore, researches could try more applications for conference or workshop so as to improve the communication and cooperation between researches and institutions as the number of conference related to nutrition is limited. Only 4% of conferences grant applications related to nutrition awarded by the National Institutes of Health between 2000 and 2005, and the largest proportion of these awards belonged to the National Cancer Institute [62].

The logic model developed in this study can be adjusted to assist evaluating and designing interventions for improvement of cancer nutrition in different settings. In particular, based on this pilot study, there were some suggestions to use the logic model of nutrition support among cancer patients for future studies: (1) mind the difference between nutrition support and diet/dietary while literature search; (2) classify the literature based on the cancer types and disease stages; (3) make sure that interviewees have worked directly in the field of cancer and nutrition; (4) focus on the barriers and suggestions while interview; and (5) concentrate on the interaction between cancer patients and medical staff.

There were some limitations in this study. Firstly, this study only included literature from three databases during the past five years and did not include the grey literature. Secondly, only three medical staff in Macao participated in the interview in this pilot study.

5. Conclusion

The logic model was developed and validated in this pilot study, which provided a holistic framework of utilization of nutrition support among cancer patients for future research. The logic model can serve as a tool to better understand interactions between the intervention of nutrition support and its multiple outcomes among cancer patients.

Data Availability

All the data used are included in Results of this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures involving research study participants were approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Macau (MYRG2018-00012-ICMS).

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

HH conceived of the original idea. COLU and HH designed the study and formulated the research questions. NIP and RB conducted the literature researches. NIP conducted the interview and drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the review and approve the final document.

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the funding from the University of Macau (MYRG2018-00012-ICMS).

References

  1. E. Á. Sanz, M. G. Siles, L. R. Fernández, R. V. Roldán, A. R. Domínguez, and J. Abilés, “Nutritional risk and malnutrition rates at diagnosis of cancer in patients treated in outpatient settings: early intervention protocol,” Nutrition, vol. 57, pp. 148–153, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. F. R. de Melo Silva, M. G. O. A. de Oliveira, A. S. R. Souza, J. N. Figueroa, and C. S. Santos, “Factors associated with malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients: a croos-sectional study,” Nutrition Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 123–123, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. Attar, D. Malka, J. M. Sabaté et al., “Malnutrition is high and underestimated during chemotherapy in gastrointestinal cancer: an AGEO prospective cross-sectional multicenter study,” Nutrition and Cancer, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 535–542, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. M. C. Fan, Q. L. Wang, W. Fang et al., “Early enteral combined with parenteral nutrition treatment for severe traumatic brain injury: effects on immune function, nutritional status and outcomes,” Chinese Medical Sciences Journal, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 213–220, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. N. C. Gellrich, J. Handschel, H. Holtmann, and G. Krüskemper, “Oral cancer malnutrition impacts weight and quality of life,” Nutrients, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2145–2160, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. Pressoir, S. Desné, D. Berchery et al., “Prevalence, risk factors and clinical implications of malnutrition in French Comprehensive Cancer Centres,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 102, no. 6, pp. 966–971, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. H. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. M. Jiang et al., “Impact of nutrition support on clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis in patients at nutritional risk: a prospective cohort study with propensity score matching,” Nutrition, vol. 37, pp. 53–59, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. J. Arends, P. Bachmann, V. Baracos et al., “ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 11–48, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. J. Arends, V. Baracos, H. Bertz et al., “ESPEN expert group recommendations for action against cancer-related malnutrition,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1187–1196, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. Chinese Society and Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, “Guidelines on nutrition support in patients with tumor,” Chinese Journal of Surgery, vol. 55, pp. 801–829, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  11. M. Kraft, S. Gärtner, P. Simon et al., “Quality control of parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients,” Nutrition, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 165–168, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. G. Han, Z. Yu, and K. Ma, “Current status of parenteral nutrition and enteral nutrition application: an assessment of nutritional prescriptions from 59 hospitals in the People’s Republic of China,” Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, vol. 11, p. 201, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. Q. Xiang, L. I. Zhigang, S. Ding, Y. Chang, and Y. Shi, “A cross-sectional study on the use of parenteral nutrition prescriptions in patients with cancer in a tertiary hospital,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 25, pp. 99–103, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  14. D. Liu, S. U. Zhiguo, S. Zhao, and Y. U. Guoying, “Utilization of enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in an inpatient pharmacy from 2008 to 2010,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 20, pp. 204–209, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  15. A. Spiro, C. Baldwin, A. Patterson, J. Thomas, and H. J. N. Andreyev, “The views and practice of oncologists towards nutritional support in patients receiving chemotherapy,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 431–434, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. P. V. DeCicco, S. M. Wunderlich, and J. S. Emmolo, “Determination of malnourishment in the head and neck cancer patient: assessment tools and nutrition education of radiation oncologists,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 19, pp. 123–130, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. B. Hopkinson, “Nutritional support of the elderly cancer patient: the role of the nurse,” Nutrition, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 598–602, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. L. Ball, D. Ball, M. Leveritt et al., “Using logic models to enhance the methodological quality of primary health-care interventions: guidance from an intervention to promote nutrition care by general practitioners and practice nurses,” Australian Journal of Primary Health, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. S. R. A. e Sousa, S. J. Shoemaker, M. M. G. do Nascimento, M. S. Costa, and D. R. de Oliveira, “Development and validation of a logic model for comprehensive medication management services,” International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 250–257, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. J.-M. Guise, C. Chang, M. Viswanathan et al., Systematic reviews of complex multicomponent health care interventions, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville, Maryland, United States, 2014.
  21. L. M. Anderson, M. Petticrew, E. Rehfuess et al., “Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews,” Research Synthesis Methods, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 33–42, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. A. McLaughlin and G. B. Jordan, “Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story,” Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. Rohwer, L. Pfadenhauer, J. Burns et al., “Logic models help make sense of complexity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 83, pp. 37–47, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. G. Wang, H. Chen, J. Liu, Y. Ma, and H. Jia, “A comparison of postoperative early enteral nutrition with delayed enteral nutrition in patients with esophageal cancer,” Nutrients, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 4308–4317, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. P. G. Vashi, S. Dahlk, B. Popiel, C. A. Lammersfeld, C. Ireton-Jones, and D. Gupta, “A longitudinal study investigating quality of life and nutritional outcomes in advanced cancer patients receiving home parenteral nutrition,” BMC Cancer, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 593, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. P. Senesse, A. Tadmouri, S. Culine et al., “A prospective observational study assessing home parenteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: benefits for quality of life,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 183–191.e2, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. T. Takesue, H. Takeuchi, M. Ogura et al., “A prospective randomized trial of enteral nutrition after thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 22, no. S3, pp. 802–809, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. T. Okada, Y. Nakajima, T. Nishikage et al., “A prospective study of nutritional supplementation for preventing oral mucositis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy,” Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 42–48, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. D. J. Bowrey, M. Baker, V. Halliday et al., “A randomised controlled trial of six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: report on a pilot and feasibility study,” Trials, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 531, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. L. Santarpia and F. Bozzetti, “Acute impact of home parenteral nutrition in patients with late-stage cancer on family caregivers: preliminary data,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 667–671, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. M. A. Shenep, M. R. Tanner, Y. Sun et al., “Catheter-related complications in children with cancer receiving parenteral nutrition: change in risk is moderated by catheter type,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1063–1071, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. J. Wang, J. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and C. Liu, “Early enteral nutrition and total parenteral nutrition on the nutritional status and blood glucose in patients with gastric cancer complicated with diabetes mellitus after radical gastrectomy,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 321–327, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. H. M. Yu, C. W. Tang, W. M. Feng, Q. Q. Chen, Y. Q. Xu, and Y. Bao, “Early enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition after resection of esophageal cancer: a retrospective analysis,” Indian Journal of Surgery, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 13–18, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. D. A. De Luis, O. Izaola, M. C. Terroba, L. Cuellar, M. Ventosa, and T. Martin, “Effect of three different doses of arginine enhanced enteral nutrition on nutritional status and outcomes in well nourished postsurgical cancer patients: a randomized single blinded prospective trial,” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 950–955, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  35. K. Sánchez-Lara, J. G. Turcott, E. Juárez-Hernández et al., “Effects of an oral nutritional supplement containing eicosapentaenoic acid on nutritional and clinical outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: randomised trial,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1017–1023, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. R. Zhao, Y. Wang, Y. Huang et al., “Effects of fiber and probiotics on diarrhea associated with enteral nutrition in gastric cancer patients,” Medicine, vol. 96, no. 43, p. e8418, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. Y. Jin, C. Yong, K. Ren, D. Li, and H. Yuan, “Effects of post-surgical parenteral nutrition on patients with gastric cancer,” Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1320–1328, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. D. Ding, Y. Feng, B. Song, S. Gao, and J. Zhao, “Effects of preoperative and postoperative enteral nutrition on postoperative nutritional status and immune function of gastric cancer patients,” The Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 181–185, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. J. C. Yang, Y. Y. Dai, L. M. Wang, Y. B. Xie, H. Y. Zhou, and G. H. Li, “Glycemic variation in tumor patients with total parenteral nutrition,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 128, no. 15, pp. 2034–2039, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. S. R. Obling, B. V. Wilson, P. Pfeiffer, and J. Kjeldsen, “Home parenteral nutrition increases fat free mass in patients with incurable gastrointestinal cancer. Results of a randomized controlled trial,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 182–190, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. B. Li, H. Y. Liu, S. H. Guo, P. Sun, F. M. Gong, and B. Q. Jia, “Impact of early postoperative enteral nutrition on clinical outcomes in patients with gastric cancer,” Genetics and Molecular Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 7136–7141, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. C. Gavazzi, S. Colatruglio, F. Valoriani et al., “Impact of home enteral nutrition in malnourished patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer: a multicentre randomised clinical trial,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 64, pp. 107–112, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. P. Cotogni, L. De Carli, R. Passera et al., “Longitudinal study of quality of life in advanced cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition,” Cancer Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 1799–1806, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. D. Kobayashi, K. Ishigure, Y. Mochizuki et al., “Multi-institutional prospective feasibility study to explore tolerability and efficacy of oral nutritional supplements for patients with gastric cancer undergoing gastrectomy (CCOG1301),” Gastric Cancer, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 718–727, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. E. Cereda, S. Cappello, S. Colombo et al., “Nutritional counseling with or without systematic use of oral nutritional supplements in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 81–88, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. A. Vidal, N. Arnold, M. D. Vartolomei et al., “Oncological and functional outcomes of postoperative total parenteral nutrition after radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients: a single-center randomized trial,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 992–999, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. J. Cohen, C. E. Wakefield, L. C. Tapsell, K. Walton, and R. J. Cohn, “Parent, patient and health professional perspectives regarding enteral nutrition in paediatric oncology,” Nutrition & dietetics, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 476–487, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. P. Kabata, T. Jastrzębski, M. Kąkol et al., “Preoperative nutritional support in cancer patients with no clinical signs of malnutrition—prospective randomized controlled trial,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 365–370, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. F. Hatao, K. Y. Chen, J. M. Wu et al., “Randomized controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of oral nutritional supplements in postoperative gastric cancer patients,” Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, vol. 402, no. 2, pp. 203–211, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. H. Miyata, M. Yano, T. Yasuda et al., “Randomized study of the clinical effects of ω-3 fatty acid–containing enteral nutrition support during neoadjuvant chemotherapy on chemotherapy-related toxicity in patients with esophageal cancer,” Nutrition, vol. 33, pp. 204–210, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. J. H. Li, L. Han, T. P. Du, and M. J. Guo, “The effect of low-nitrogen and low-calorie parenteral nutrition combined with enteral nutrition on inflammatory cytokines and immune functions in patients with gastric cancer: a double blind placebo trial,” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1345–1350, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  52. A. A. Mendivil, M. A. Rettenmaier, L. N. Abaid, J. V. Brown III, K. M. Mori, and B. H. Goldstein, “The impact of total parenteral nutrition on postoperative recovery in patients treated for advanced stage ovarian cancer,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 295, no. 2, pp. 439–444, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. T. Brown, M. Banks, B. G. M. Hughes, C. Lin, L. Kenny, and J. Bauer, “Tube feeding during treatment for head and neck cancer - Adherence and patient reported barriers,” Oral Oncology, vol. 72, pp. 140–149, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. J. P. T. Higgins and S. E. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, The Cochrane Collaboration and Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. View at: Publisher Site
  55. P. Stone, “Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice,” Applied Nursing Research, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 197-198, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. P. G. Puhringer, A. Olsen, M. Climstein, S. Sargeant, L. M. Jones, and J. W. L. Keogh, “Current nutrition promotion, beliefs and barriers among cancer nurses in Australia and New Zealand,” PeerJ, vol. 3, article e1396, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. R. Yang, X. M. Li, G. Xu, J. Han, Z. Lu, and Z. Ding, “Follow-up study on nutrition support drugs utilization in cancer patients,” Chinese Journal of Hospital Administration, vol. 23, pp. 34–36, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  58. K. Selwood, E. Ward, and F. Gibson, “Assessment and management of nutritional challenges in children’s cancer care: a survey of current practice in the United Kingdom,” European Journal of Oncology Nursing, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 439–446, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. J. S. Li, “The development trend of clinical nutrition support,” Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, vol. 17, pp. 1–4, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  60. T. Cederholm, R. Barazzoni, P. Austin et al., “ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 49–64, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. L. Valentini, D. Volkert, T. Schütz et al., “Suggestions for terminology in clinical nutrition,” e-SPEN Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. e97–e108, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  62. S. S. Percival and J. A. Milner, “Challenges and opportunities for support of nutritional science conferences and scientific meetings at National Institutes of Health,” The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 135, no. 8, pp. 2006–2008, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Ngou In Pang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views247
Downloads168
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.