A Comparison of a Vote Count and a Meta-Analysis Review of Intervention Research With Adult Cancer Patients

Bibliographic Data

ID14993601
AuthorsJulie Cwikel (0000-0002-7890-8081, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev), Lynn Behar (University of Washington), Lynn C Behar (University of Washington), June Rabson-Hare (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)
Year2000
Volume10
Issue1
Pages139-158
Publication date2000-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueResearch on Social Work Practice (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1049-7315 • E-ISSN: 1552-7581
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/15527581-00010001-02
OpenAlexW1530681475
LanguageEN
Citations received4

Objective: This study compares the utility of two methods of knowledge utilization in social work intervention: vote count review and meta-analysis. Methods: Using the two methods, the authors reviewed 40 intervention studies with adult cancer patients that used treatment techniques common in social work. The common research question was, which treatments are the most effective with cancer patients, differentiated by disease phase and type of diagnosis? Results: By both methods of review, interventions were shown to be most common and effective at the treatment phase, and cognitive-behavioral methods showed the most consistently positive effects. Correlations between the vote count and meta-analysis results showed that the outcome score given in the vote count was very strongly correlated with the average effect size from the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Vote count is a relatively simple method of knowledge utilization, whereas meta-analysis requires careful explanation of the discretionary steps taken in analysis

Meta-analysis · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Cancer survivorship and care · Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life · Clinical Psychology · Medicine · Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues · Psychology · Internal Medicine

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub