Saira Sanjida1, Steven M McPhail1,2, Joanne Shaw3, Jeremy Couper4,5, David Kissane6, Melanie A Price3, Monika Janda1,7. 1. School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2. Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Mental Health, Justice Health, Alcohol and Drug Services, Canberra, Australia. 5. Academic Unit of Psychiatry & Addiction Medicine, Australian National University Medical School, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this meta-analysis were to estimate the overall effect size (ES) of psychological interventions on anxiety in patients with cancer and extract sample and intervention characteristics that influence effectiveness. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL were searched using Medical Subject Heading keywords 'cancer' AND 'anxiety' AND 'psychological intervention' AND 'counselling' AND 'psycho*' AND 'psychotherapy' AND 'psychosocial' AND 'therapy' between January 1993 and June 2017. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were eligible for the systematic review; among them, 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis calculations. The overall ES was -0.21 (95% confidence interval; -0.30 to -0.13) in favour of the intervention. From subgroup analyses, studies conducted in Asia, enrolling inpatients, focussing on relaxation, of <6-week intervention duration, <30-minute intervention dose per session, and <4 hours of total time of intervention showed moderate ESs ranging from -0.40 to -0.55. Only 2 studies restricted enrolment to prescreened patients with clinically elevated level of anxiety and showed moderate ES of -0.58. CONCLUSIONS: Low psychological distress at baseline and nonevidence-based interventions were the main factors identified for low effectiveness. Screening and assessment to determine clinical levels of anxiety in patients with cancer should be considered in future trials as an inclusion criterion before providing psychological interventions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017056132.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this meta-analysis were to estimate the overall effect size (ES) of psychological interventions on anxiety in patients with cancer and extract sample and intervention characteristics that influence effectiveness. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL were searched using Medical Subject Heading keywords 'cancer' AND 'anxiety' AND 'psychological intervention' AND 'counselling' AND 'psycho*' AND 'psychotherapy' AND 'psychosocial' AND 'therapy' between January 1993 and June 2017. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies were eligible for the systematic review; among them, 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis calculations. The overall ES was -0.21 (95% confidence interval; -0.30 to -0.13) in favour of the intervention. From subgroup analyses, studies conducted in Asia, enrolling inpatients, focussing on relaxation, of <6-week intervention duration, <30-minute intervention dose per session, and <4 hours of total time of intervention showed moderate ESs ranging from -0.40 to -0.55. Only 2 studies restricted enrolment to prescreened patients with clinically elevated level of anxiety and showed moderate ES of -0.58. CONCLUSIONS: Low psychological distress at baseline and nonevidence-based interventions were the main factors identified for low effectiveness. Screening and assessment to determine clinical levels of anxiety in patients with cancer should be considered in future trials as an inclusion criterion before providing psychological interventions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017056132.
Authors: Cari Davies; Stephen Lloyd Brown; Peter Fisher; Laura Hope-Stone; Debra Fisher; Andrew Morgan; Mary Gemma Cherry Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Esther N Pijnappel; Willemieke P M Dijksterhuis; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Simone Augustinus; Judith de Vos-Geelen; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Izaak Q Molenaar; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink; Johanna W Wilmink; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 3.359
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: Loek J van der Donk; K Annika Tovote; Thera P Links; Jan L N Roodenburg; Johanna C Kluin-Nelemans; Henriette J G Arts; Veronique E M Mul; Robert J van Ginkel; Peter C Baas; Christiaan Hoff; Robbert Sanderman; Joke Fleer; Maya J Schroevers Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.894