Anna Ugalde1, Kerry Haynes2, Anna Boltong3, Victoria White4, Meinir Krishnasamy5, Penelope Schofield6, Sanchia Aranda7, Patricia Livingston2. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Information and Support Service, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: a.ugalde@deakin.edu.au. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. 3. Cancer Information and Support Service, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 6. Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia. 7. Department of Nursing, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Council Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: People with cancer can experience psychological distress but do not always desire, or engage with, professional support to assist with managing distress. Interventions that are self-directed or guided by patients may hold promise as they allow patients to engage with interventions as they need. The objective of this review is to describe and appraise the evidence for effectiveness of self-guided interventions that aim to manage psychological distress in people with cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, PsychInfo and CINAHL identified 15 relevant papers, reporting on 14 studies. RESULTS: Of the interventions, three studies comprised hard-copy workbooks, six studies used resource packs, four were online resources and one was a brief multimedia resource. One study was adequately powered and demonstrated a positive effect. Almost all interventions required some level of facilitation. Distressed participants may benefit more from interventions. CONCLUSION: Self-guided interventions represent a potentially efficient way of delivering support for people affected by cancer, however evidence supporting them is lacking. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need to generate evidence to understand the impact of self-guided interventions for: i) the ideal delivery point in the disease trajectory, ii) patient groups, iii) intervention content and iv) type and mode of delivery.
OBJECTIVE:People with cancer can experience psychological distress but do not always desire, or engage with, professional support to assist with managing distress. Interventions that are self-directed or guided by patients may hold promise as they allow patients to engage with interventions as they need. The objective of this review is to describe and appraise the evidence for effectiveness of self-guided interventions that aim to manage psychological distress in people with cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, PsychInfo and CINAHL identified 15 relevant papers, reporting on 14 studies. RESULTS: Of the interventions, three studies comprised hard-copy workbooks, six studies used resource packs, four were online resources and one was a brief multimedia resource. One study was adequately powered and demonstrated a positive effect. Almost all interventions required some level of facilitation. Distressed participants may benefit more from interventions. CONCLUSION: Self-guided interventions represent a potentially efficient way of delivering support for people affected by cancer, however evidence supporting them is lacking. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need to generate evidence to understand the impact of self-guided interventions for: i) the ideal delivery point in the disease trajectory, ii) patient groups, iii) intervention content and iv) type and mode of delivery.
Authors: Lahiru Russell; Anna Ugalde; Donna Milne; Meinir Krishnasamy; Eric O Seung Chul; David W Austin; Richard Chambers; Liliana Orellana; Patricia M Livingston Journal: Trials Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sarah-May Blaschke; Sylvie D Lambert; Patricia M Livingston; Sanchia Aranda; Anna Boltong; Penelope Schofield; Suzanne K Chambers; Meinir Krishnasamy; Anna Ugalde Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nicole Kiss; Brenton James Baguley; Kylie Ball; Robin M Daly; Steve F Fraser; Catherine L Granger; Anna Ugalde Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Patricia M Livingston; Leila Heckel; Liliana Orellana; David Ashley; Anna Ugalde; Mari Botti; Graham Pitson; Anne Woollett; Suzanne K Chambers; Phillip Parente; Jacqueline Chirgwin; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Barbara Lavelle; Jennifer Sutton; Jo Phipps-Nelson; Mei Krishnasamy; Katherine Simons; Natalie Heynsbergh; Nilmini Wickramasinghe; Vicki White Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.452