Elise J Devlin1, Linley A Denson2, Hayley S Whitford3. 1. School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: elise.devlin@adelaide.edu.au. 2. School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 3. School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although previous research has, overall, suggested a moderate relationship between response expectancies (REs) and cancer treatment-related side effects, empirical results have been mixed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to further explore these relationships, hypothesizing that REs would predict subsequent toxicities with the inclusion of more recent studies, across a broader range of side effects, while incorporating the impact of potential moderators including patients' experience with treatment and measurement methods. We further investigated the impact of REs across individual toxicities. METHODS: A systematic search and analysis were conducted across four databases (PsychInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) and reference lists, from 1985 to February 2016. This provided 27 eligible studies with 4474 participants, through which the main analysis, moderator analyses, and individual side-effect analyses were explored. RESULTS: REs were moderately related to side effects overall (r = 0.26), and effect sizes were significantly influenced by sample diagnostic homogeneity, whereas differences between type and timing of measurement showed trends. Of the 16 toxicities examined, 15 demonstrated significant relationships between REs and side-effect experience, with hair loss (r = 0.48) the strongest. No clear difference emerged between objective and subjective side effects; however, significant differences across individual toxicities were revealed. CONCLUSION: Findings support a relationship between REs and a wide range of subsequent side effects, yet differences between individual RE-toxicity associations emerged. These findings provide direction for the measurement of side effects and REs and support REs as potential targets for intervention during the informed consent process.
CONTEXT: Although previous research has, overall, suggested a moderate relationship between response expectancies (REs) and cancer treatment-related side effects, empirical results have been mixed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to further explore these relationships, hypothesizing that REs would predict subsequent toxicities with the inclusion of more recent studies, across a broader range of side effects, while incorporating the impact of potential moderators including patients' experience with treatment and measurement methods. We further investigated the impact of REs across individual toxicities. METHODS: A systematic search and analysis were conducted across four databases (PsychInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) and reference lists, from 1985 to February 2016. This provided 27 eligible studies with 4474 participants, through which the main analysis, moderator analyses, and individual side-effect analyses were explored. RESULTS: REs were moderately related to side effects overall (r = 0.26), and effect sizes were significantly influenced by sample diagnostic homogeneity, whereas differences between type and timing of measurement showed trends. Of the 16 toxicities examined, 15 demonstrated significant relationships between REs and side-effect experience, with hair loss (r = 0.48) the strongest. No clear difference emerged between objective and subjective side effects; however, significant differences across individual toxicities were revealed. CONCLUSION: Findings support a relationship between REs and a wide range of subsequent side effects, yet differences between individual RE-toxicity associations emerged. These findings provide direction for the measurement of side effects and REs and support REs as potential targets for intervention during the informed consent process.
Authors: Alice Avancini; Ilaria Trestini; Daniela Tregnago; Lorenzo Belluomini; Marco Sposito; Jessica Insolda; Federico Schena; Michele Milella; Sara Pilotto Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Roma Maguire; Lisa McCann; Grigorios Kotronoulas; Nora Kearney; Emma Ream; Jo Armes; Elisabeth Patiraki; Eileen Furlong; Patricia Fox; Alexander Gaiger; Paul McCrone; Geir Berg; Christine Miaskowkski; Antonella Cardone; Dawn Orr; Adrian Flowerday; Stylianos Katsaragakis; Andrew Darley; Simone Lubowitzki; Jenny Harris; Simon Skene; Morven Miller; Margaret Moore; Liane Lewis; Nicosha DeSouza; Peter T Donnan Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-07-21
Authors: Karin Meissner; Nicola Talsky; Elisabeth Olliges; Carmen Jacob; Oliver J Stötzer; Christoph Salat; Michael Braun; Raluca Flondor Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Alice Avancini; Valeria Pala; Ilaria Trestini; Daniela Tregnago; Luigi Mariani; Sabina Sieri; Vittorio Krogh; Marco Boresta; Michele Milella; Sara Pilotto; Massimo Lanza Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Luke D Geoffrion; Tina Hesabizadeh; David Medina-Cruz; Matthew Kusper; Patrick Taylor; Ada Vernet-Crua; Junjiang Chen; Alessandro Ajo; Thomas J Webster; Grégory Guisbiers Journal: ACS Omega Date: 2020-02-05