ticles published from 1980 to 2007 in Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases. When known, evidence from books, book chapters, and other governmental or nongovernmental evidence reports not indexed in Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE was included. Each evidence review involved two reviewers who examined individual studies and the evidence in the aggregate with the aid of standard evidence reporting and scoring forms. Each review team made a determination of the extent to which the evidence showed the intervention to be effective in addressing the identified need. Search terms for each of the 38 candidate services are available from IOM study staff.
When undertaking this review, the committee again encountered a lack of clarity in the terminology used to refer to psychosocial services (discussed above for psychosocial services in the aggregate and in Chapter 3 with respect to individual services). The absence of some definitions, other overlapping definitions and constructs, and the absence of evidence for some services led the committee to “collapse” its list of psychosocial services to the final list of 15 listed in Table B-2.
The findings of the committee’s evidence reviews are included in Chapter 3. The committee hopes that the development of a taxonomy and nomenclature for psychosocial health services and the use of stronger research methods will in the future enable more efficient and effective identification, retrieval, and analyses of evidence. The committee is concerned that the absence of a controlled vocabulary for psychosocial health services may have led to inadvertent omission of some relevant evidence in its analyses of the effectiveness of individual psychosocial health services.
The committee defined the term “models”—as used in the sponsor’s task statement—to mean interventions that have been found effective in delivering psychosocial health services to patients with cancer or other serious chronic illnesses in a community setting. Interventions should (1) have been used to deliver psychosocial health services consistent with the committee’s definition, and (2) have been evaluated and found effective in improving patient outcomes. Identified outcomes of interest included (but were not necessarily limited to) the following:
Functional status—improving function or preventing or slowing decline
Decreased comorbidity (e.g., depression)