OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the evidence of existential interventions in adult patients with cancer. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and the WHO ICTRP were searched up until 26 January 2018. Eligibility criteria for studies were (1) adult patients with cancer, (2) evaluation of existential interventions, (3) compared with active/non-active control, (4) assessing relevant spiritual, psychological, or physical outcomes, and (5) conducted as randomized controlled trials. Standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) were calculated, and meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Effects were aggregated within four time horizons (post-treatment; ≤3 months; ≤6 months; >6 months). Heterogeneity was assessed by forest plots and I2 . Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. This review has been registered with Prospero (CRD42016042895). RESULTS: A total of 3461 records were identified, of which 30 unique studies (3511 participants) were included in the review and 24 studies were included in meta-analyses. Existential interventions showed significant effects on existential well-being (g = 0.52; CI[0.13; 0.91; k = 10; I2 = 85%) and quality of life (g = 0.21; CI[0.01; 0.42]; k = 17; I2 = 75%) at post-treatment, on hope at post-treatment (g = 0.43; CI[0.12; 0.74]; k = 12; I2 = 86%) and after 6 months (g = 0.25; CI[0.02; 0.48]; k = 3; I2 = 0%) and on self-efficacy at post-treatment (g = 0.50; CI[0.09; 0.90]; k = 2; I2 = 0%). No significant effects were found on the remaining outcomes and time points. Significant moderator effects were found for professional background of therapists, intervention concept, number of sessions, and setting. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that adult patients with cancer across all stages and types benefit from existential interventions. Future research should strive towards a higher standardization in particular with respect to outcome assessments.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the evidence of existential interventions in adult patients with cancer. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and the WHO ICTRP were searched up until 26 January 2018. Eligibility criteria for studies were (1) adult patients with cancer, (2) evaluation of existential interventions, (3) compared with active/non-active control, (4) assessing relevant spiritual, psychological, or physical outcomes, and (5) conducted as randomized controlled trials. Standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) were calculated, and meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Effects were aggregated within four time horizons (post-treatment; ≤3 months; ≤6 months; >6 months). Heterogeneity was assessed by forest plots and I2 . Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. This review has been registered with Prospero (CRD42016042895). RESULTS: A total of 3461 records were identified, of which 30 unique studies (3511 participants) were included in the review and 24 studies were included in meta-analyses. Existential interventions showed significant effects on existential well-being (g = 0.52; CI[0.13; 0.91; k = 10; I2 = 85%) and quality of life (g = 0.21; CI[0.01; 0.42]; k = 17; I2 = 75%) at post-treatment, on hope at post-treatment (g = 0.43; CI[0.12; 0.74]; k = 12; I2 = 86%) and after 6 months (g = 0.25; CI[0.02; 0.48]; k = 3; I2 = 0%) and on self-efficacy at post-treatment (g = 0.50; CI[0.09; 0.90]; k = 2; I2 = 0%). No significant effects were found on the remaining outcomes and time points. Significant moderator effects were found for professional background of therapists, intervention concept, number of sessions, and setting. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that adult patients with cancer across all stages and types benefit from existential interventions. Future research should strive towards a higher standardization in particular with respect to outcome assessments.
Authors: Michelle B Riba; Kristine A Donovan; Barbara Andersen; IIana Braun; William S Breitbart; Benjamin W Brewer; Luke O Buchmann; Matthew M Clark; Molly Collins; Cheyenne Corbett; Stewart Fleishman; Sofia Garcia; Donna B Greenberg; Rev George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Chao-Hui Huang; Robin Lally; Sara Martin; Lisa McGuffey; William Mitchell; Laura J Morrison; Megan Pailler; Oxana Palesh; Francine Parnes; Janice P Pazar; Laurel Ralston; Jaroslava Salman; Moreen M Shannon-Dudley; Alan D Valentine; Nicole R McMillian; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Crystal L Park; James E Pustejovsky; Kelly Trevino; Allen C Sherman; Craig Esposito; Mark Berendsen; John M Salsman Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joseph G Winger; Katherine Ramos; Sarah A Kelleher; Tamara J Somers; Karen E Steinhauser; Laura S Porter; Arif H Kamal; William S Breitbart; Francis J Keefe Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 2.947