Lisa Beatty1,2, Emma Kemp1,2, Phyllis Butow3, Afaf Girgis4, Penelope Schofield5,6,7, Jane Turner8, Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams9, Janelle V Levesque4, Bogda Koczwara2. 1. Flinders University, Adelaide, South Austalia, Australia. 2. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Bedford Park, South Austalia, Australia. 3. University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research; South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia. 6. Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 7. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 8. University of Queensland, Brisbane, New South Wales, Australia. 9. Chester Research Unit for the Psychology of Health, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence-base of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer, by mode of delivery (group, individual, or low-intensity interventions). To synthesise data regarding core intervention-elements (eg, intervention duration) and context factors (trial setting, uptake and adherence, and demographic characteristics). METHODS: Four databases were searched (inception-May 2016): MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), and SCOPUS; reference lists were examined for additional publications. Grey literature was excluded. Outcome data were extracted for survival, distress, quality of life, coping, sleep, fatigue, and/or pain and summarised through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Fifteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs), reported across 23 articles, met inclusion criteria: 7 groups, 4 individuals, and 4 low-intensity interventions. Overall, interventions improved distress (8/13 RCTs), coping (4/5 RCTs), and pain (4/5 RCTs). No evidence of survival benefit was found. For remaining outcomes, evidence was either insufficient, or too mixed to draw conclusions. Group programs had the strongest evidence-base for efficacy; individual and low-intensity therapy had insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Group interventions had longest intervention durations and lowest uptake and adherence; low-intensity interventions had shortest durations and highest uptake and adherence. Disparities in uptake, adherence, and reach were evident, with the demographic profile of participants polarised to young, Caucasian, English-speaking, partnered women. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a paucity of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer. Those that exist have an inconsistent evidence-base across the range of patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate accessible delivery formats that ensure efficacy as well as uptake.
OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence-base of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer, by mode of delivery (group, individual, or low-intensity interventions). To synthesise data regarding core intervention-elements (eg, intervention duration) and context factors (trial setting, uptake and adherence, and demographic characteristics). METHODS: Four databases were searched (inception-May 2016): MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), and SCOPUS; reference lists were examined for additional publications. Grey literature was excluded. Outcome data were extracted for survival, distress, quality of life, coping, sleep, fatigue, and/or pain and summarised through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Fifteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs), reported across 23 articles, met inclusion criteria: 7 groups, 4 individuals, and 4 low-intensity interventions. Overall, interventions improved distress (8/13 RCTs), coping (4/5 RCTs), and pain (4/5 RCTs). No evidence of survival benefit was found. For remaining outcomes, evidence was either insufficient, or too mixed to draw conclusions. Group programs had the strongest evidence-base for efficacy; individual and low-intensity therapy had insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Group interventions had longest intervention durations and lowest uptake and adherence; low-intensity interventions had shortest durations and highest uptake and adherence. Disparities in uptake, adherence, and reach were evident, with the demographic profile of participants polarised to young, Caucasian, English-speaking, partnered women. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a paucity of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer. Those that exist have an inconsistent evidence-base across the range of patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate accessible delivery formats that ensure efficacy as well as uptake.
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Ellen Krueger; Adam T Hirsh; Kathy D Miller; Tarah J Ballinger; Anna Maria Storniolo; Bryan P Schneider; Erin V Newton; Victoria L Champion; Shelley A Johns Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Ekin Secinti; Ruohong Li; Adam T Hirsh; Jonathan Bricker; Kathy D Miller; Bryan Schneider; Anna Maria Storniolo; Lida Mina; Erin V Newton; Victoria L Champion; Shelley A Johns Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laura Catherine Edney; Jacqueline Roseleur; Jodi Gray; Bogda Koczwara; Jonathan Karnon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Emma Kemp; Bogda Koczwara; Phyllis Butow; Jane Turner; Afaf Girgis; Penelope Schofield; Nicholas Hulbert-Williams; Janelle Levesque; Danielle Spence; Sina Vatandoust; Ganessan Kichenadasse; Amitesh Roy; Shawgi Sukumaran; Christos S Karapetis; Caroline Richards; Michael Fitzgerald; Lisa Beatty Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rosario Costas-Muñiz; Olga Garduño-Ortega; Migda Hunter-Hernández; Jennifer Morales; Eida M Castro-Figueroa; Francesca Gany Journal: Am J Psychother Date: 2020-10-08
Authors: Laura B Oswald; Brandy Arredondo; Mika Kadono; Dinorah Martinez-Tyson; Cathy D Meade; Frank Penedo; Michael H Antoni; Hatem Soliman; Ricardo L B Costa; Heather S L Jim Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 4.452