Background: A variety of nonpharmacological interventions that improve the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer have been difficult for medical staff to select through randomized controlled trials or traditional meta-analyses. Thus, a network meta-analysis is necessary. Objective: This study used network meta-analysis to analyze the effect of 13 different nonpharmacological interventions on improving the living quality of patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Five English databases were searched up to January 2019. The search strategy only included terms relating to or describing the intervention. Results: The study included 13 different nonpharmacological interventions. The overall efficacy was summarized through a holistic study of quality of life. The study found that the combined effect sizes of 13 nonpharmacological interventions crossed the invalid line (weighted mean difference, -13 [95% confidence interval, -33 to 8.5] to 1.7 [95% confidence interval, -18 to 22]), indicating that none of the intervention was significantly different from each other. By evaluating the heterogeneity of this outcome, no significant evidence of heterogeneity ( P > .05) was observed. Probability ranking according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve showed that there was a great possibility for the CanWalk intervention and structured multidisciplinary intervention to improve outcomes for cancer patients. Conclusions: Thirteen nonpharmacological interventions did not significantly impact quality of life. Regarding the probability rank, CanWalk intervention may be the most promising way that advanced cancer patients can help themselves to a better life. Because of the limitations of the current studies, the conclusion needs further evidence. Implications for practice: Nurses should consider recommending moderate physical activity for patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Several systematic reviews exist that examine the efficacy of educational interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to improve formal caregivers' knowledge and skills and/or the outcomes of persons living with dementia. The aim of this article is to summarize existing systematic reviews to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions tested in RCTs and directed at formal caregivers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Smith et al.'s methodology guided this systematic review of systematic reviews. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) for quality appraisals. Reviews were included if they contained interventions with an RCT design that focused on changing staff behavior and/or practice toward persons living with dementia, in any setting and for any health care discipline. RESULTS: We identified six systematic reviews, one rated as high-quality on the AMSTAR 2. Most interventions were directed at nursing staff, in long-term care facilities, focused on agitation, and were atheoretical. There is insufficient evidence to guide implementation of currently tested interventions; however, training in communication skills, person-centered care, and dementia-care mapping with supervision show promise for improving agitation. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: There's a critical need for additional research with well-designed RCTs, and clear reporting of protocols and findings to inform the field on how best to train and support the workforce. Although there is no conclusive evidence on what interventions are most effective, it could be argued that providing training using interventions with modest evidence of impact is better than no training at all until the evidence base is strengthened.