CONTEXT: Fatigue is among the most common and distressing symptoms experienced by cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of psychological and activity-based interventions against cancer-related fatigue in cancer patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of psychological and activity-based interventions involving adult cancer patients in which fatigue was an outcome were reviewed. EXTRACTION: Forty-one trials were reviewed and 30 were included in a meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty percent of psychological trials and 44% of activity-based trials rated fair or better in quality yielded significant findings favoring the intervention condition. Meta-analysis yielded an overall effect size of 0.09 (95% CI = .02- .16) favoring nonpharmacological conditions. Further analysis indicated that effect sizes were significant for psychological interventions (d-sub(w) = .10, 95% CI = .02-.18) but not activity-based interventions (d-sub(w) = .05, 95% CI = -.08 - .19). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide limited support for use of nonpharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue. The lack of research with heightened fatigue as an eligibility criterion is a notable weakness of the existing evidence base. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).
CONTEXT: Fatigue is among the most common and distressing symptoms experienced by cancerpatients. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of psychological and activity-based interventions against cancer-related fatigue in cancerpatients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of psychological and activity-based interventions involving adult cancerpatients in which fatigue was an outcome were reviewed. EXTRACTION: Forty-one trials were reviewed and 30 were included in a meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty percent of psychological trials and 44% of activity-based trials rated fair or better in quality yielded significant findings favoring the intervention condition. Meta-analysis yielded an overall effect size of 0.09 (95% CI = .02- .16) favoring nonpharmacological conditions. Further analysis indicated that effect sizes were significant for psychological interventions (d-sub(w) = .10, 95% CI = .02-.18) but not activity-based interventions (d-sub(w) = .05, 95% CI = -.08 - .19). CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide limited support for use of nonpharmacological interventions to manage cancer-related fatigue. The lack of research with heightened fatigue as an eligibility criterion is a notable weakness of the existing evidence base. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Kerry S Courneya; Christine M Friedenreich; Rami A Sela; H Arthur Quinney; Ryan E Rhodes; Michael Handman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Kerry S Courneya; John R Mackey; Gordon J Bell; Lee W Jones; Catherine J Field; Adrian S Fairey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roanne J Segal; Robert D Reid; Kerry S Courneya; Shawn C Malone; Matthew B Parliament; Chris G Scott; Peter M Venner; H Arthur Quinney; Lee W Jones; Monika E Slovinec D'Angelo; George A Wells Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan M Rawl; Barbara A Given; Charles W Given; Victoria L Champion; Sharon L Kozachik; Sharon L Kozachik; Debra Barton; Christine L Emsley; Stephen D Williams Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Louise Bordeleau; John Paul Szalai; Marguerite Ennis; Molyn Leszcz; Michael Speca; Rami Sela; Richard Doll; Harvey M Chochinov; Margaret Navarro; Andrew Arnold; Kathleen I Pritchard; Andrea Bezjak; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Carol A Sawka; Pamela J Goodwin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul B Jacobsen; Cathy D Meade; Kevin D Stein; Thomas N Chirikos; Brent J Small; John C Ruckdeschel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Neil B Alexander; George E Taffet; Frances McFarland Horne; Basil A Eldadah; Luigi Ferrucci; Susan Nayfield; Stephanie Studenski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Julie K Silver; Vishwa S Raj; Jack B Fu; Eric M Wisotzky; Sean Robinson Smith; Rebecca A Kirch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rebecca M Speck; Kerry S Courneya; Louise C Mâsse; Sue Duval; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Jong Y Park; Jennifer Permuth-Wey; Maria A Rincon; Kristin M Phillips; Brent J Small; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Michael R Irwin; Pamela Hinds; Andrew Miller; Ann Berger; Paul Jacobsen; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Bryce B Reeve; Karen Mustian; Ann O'Mara; Jin-Shei Lai; Michael Fisch; David Cella Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908