Yanli Hu1, Tao Liu2, Fan Li3,4. 1. School of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun, China. 2. Medical Research Center, Second Teaching Hospital, University of Jilin School of Medicine, Changchun, China. 3. School of Nursing, Jilin University, Changchun, China. lifan@jlu.edu.cn. 4. School of Nursing, The Key Laboratory of Zoonosis, Chinese Ministry of Education, College of Basic Medical Science, Jilin University, No. 126 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021, China. lifan@jlu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-caregiver dyadic interventions are when "interventions are offered to cancer patients and their family caregivers together as the unit of care." The purpose of the present study was to determine the association of dyadic intervention for cancer patients and their family caregivers with quality of life (QOL), and other outcomes for people with cancer. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using the electronic databases to identify all randomized clinical trials on cancer patient-caregiver dyads. Meta-analysis was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs provided data on 2317 patient-caregiver dyads. In the meta-analysis, at the 0- to 3-month follow-up, dyadic intervention was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient total QOL (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.50); the total spiritual aspect of QOL (SMD, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-0.50); the emotional (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-0.29), social (SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.36), and mental (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.46) aspects of QOL; depression (SMD, - 0.35; 95% CI, - 0.65 to - 0.05); anxiety (SMD, - 0.42; 95% CI, - 0.70 to - 0.13); relatedness (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32); and marital functioning (SMD, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.05-1.97). At the 3.1- to 6-month follow-up, dyadic intervention was associated with significant improvements in patient social aspect (SMD, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03-0.35) and depression (SMD, - 0.29; 95% CI, - 0.56 to - 0.03). There was no association between dyadic interventions and the patient functional and physical aspects of QOL. Dyadic intervention was associated consistently with no improvements in hopelessness, pain, fatigue, and survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, dyadic interventions for caregivers and cancer patients were associated with improvements in multiple psychosocial aspects of patient outcomes.
PURPOSE:Patient-caregiver dyadic interventions are when "interventions are offered to cancerpatients and their family caregivers together as the unit of care." The purpose of the present study was to determine the association of dyadic intervention for cancerpatients and their family caregivers with quality of life (QOL), and other outcomes for people with cancer. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using the electronic databases to identify all randomized clinical trials on cancerpatient-caregiver dyads. Meta-analysis was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs provided data on 2317 patient-caregiver dyads. In the meta-analysis, at the 0- to 3-month follow-up, dyadic intervention was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient total QOL (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.50); the total spiritual aspect of QOL (SMD, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-0.50); the emotional (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-0.29), social (SMD, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.36), and mental (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.46) aspects of QOL; depression (SMD, - 0.35; 95% CI, - 0.65 to - 0.05); anxiety (SMD, - 0.42; 95% CI, - 0.70 to - 0.13); relatedness (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32); and marital functioning (SMD, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.05-1.97). At the 3.1- to 6-month follow-up, dyadic intervention was associated with significant improvements in patient social aspect (SMD, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03-0.35) and depression (SMD, - 0.29; 95% CI, - 0.56 to - 0.03). There was no association between dyadic interventions and the patient functional and physical aspects of QOL. Dyadic intervention was associated consistently with no improvements in hopelessness, pain, fatigue, and survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, dyadic interventions for caregivers and cancerpatients were associated with improvements in multiple psychosocial aspects of patient outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer patient; Caregiver; Dyads; Meta-analysis
Authors: Gwen Wyatt; Rebecca Lehto; Pratim Guha-Niyogi; Sarah Brewer; David Victorson; Thaddeus Pace; Terry Badger; Alla Sikorskii Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Joseph G Winger; Katherine Ramos; Karen E Steinhauser; Tamara J Somers; Laura S Porter; Arif H Kamal; William S Breitbart; Francis J Keefe Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2020-06
Authors: Dana Ketcher; Amy K Otto; Susan T Vadaparampil; Richard E Heyman; Lee Ellington; Maija Reblin Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Lauren A Zimmaro; Mengying Deng; Elizabeth Handorf; Carolyn Y Fang; Crystal S Denlinger; Jennifer B Reese Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 3.603