Colleen A Cuthbert1, Janine F Farragher2, Brenda R Hemmelgarn2,3, Qirui Ding4, Geoffrey P McKinnon1, Winson Y Cheung1,5. 1. Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Molecular Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Alberta Health Services Cancer Control, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Self-management has been proposed as a strategy to help cancer patients optimize their health and well-being during survivorship. Previous reviews have shown variable effects of self-management on outcomes. The theoretical basis and psychoeducational components of these interventions have not been evaluated in detail. We aimed to evaluate the evidence for self-management and provide a description of the components of these interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of self-management interventions for adults who had completed primary cancer treatment by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Controlled Trials. We included experimental and quasiexperimental designs. Data synthesis included narrative and tabular summary of results; heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the risk of bias of nonrandomized studies tool. RESULTS: Forty-one studies published between 1994 and 29 March 2018 were included. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials and targeted to breast cancer survivors. A variety of intervention designs, psychoeducational components, and outcomes were identified. Less than 50% of the studies included a theoretical framework. There was variability of effects across most outcomes. Risk of bias could not be fully assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There are limitations in the design and research on self-management interventions for cancer survivors that hinder their translation into clinical practice. Further research is needed to understand if these interventions are an important type of support for cancer survivors.
OBJECTIVE: Self-management has been proposed as a strategy to help cancerpatients optimize their health and well-being during survivorship. Previous reviews have shown variable effects of self-management on outcomes. The theoretical basis and psychoeducational components of these interventions have not been evaluated in detail. We aimed to evaluate the evidence for self-management and provide a description of the components of these interventions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of self-management interventions for adults who had completed primary cancer treatment by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Controlled Trials. We included experimental and quasiexperimental designs. Data synthesis included narrative and tabular summary of results; heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the risk of bias of nonrandomized studies tool. RESULTS: Forty-one studies published between 1994 and 29 March 2018 were included. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials and targeted to breast cancer survivors. A variety of intervention designs, psychoeducational components, and outcomes were identified. Less than 50% of the studies included a theoretical framework. There was variability of effects across most outcomes. Risk of bias could not be fully assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There are limitations in the design and research on self-management interventions for cancer survivors that hinder their translation into clinical practice. Further research is needed to understand if these interventions are an important type of support for cancer survivors.
Authors: Marco Di Nitto; Fabio Sollazzo; Valentina Biagioli; Gianluca Pucciarelli; Francesco Torino; Rosaria Alvaro; Ercole Vellone Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Karen L Syrjala; Casey A Walsh; Jean C Yi; Wendy M Leisenring; Emily Jo Rajotte; Jenna Voutsinas; Patricia A Ganz; Linda A Jacobs; Steven C Palmer; Ann Partridge; K Scott Baker Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Helbert Eustáquio Cardoso da Silva; Glaucia Nize Martins Santos; André Ferreira Leite; Carla Ruffeil Moreira Mesquita; Paulo Tadeu de Souza Figueiredo; Cristine Miron Stefani; Nilce de Santos Melo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Nicholas Clarke; Simon Dunne; Laura Coffey; Linda Sharp; Deirdre Desmond; Jean O'Conner; Eleanor O'Sullivan; Conrad Timon; Claire Cullen; Pamela Gallagher Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Doris Howell; Deborah K Mayer; Richard Fielding; Manuela Eicher; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Christoffer Johansen; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; Claire Foster; Raymond Chan; Catherine M Alfano; Shawna V Hudson; Michael Jefford; Wendy W T Lam; Victoria Loerzel; Gabriella Pravettoni; Elke Rammant; Lidia Schapira; Kevin D Stein; Bogda Koczwara Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anouk S Schuit; Valesca van Zwieten; Karen Holtmaat; Pim Cuijpers; Simone E J Eerenstein; C René Leemans; Marije R Vergeer; Jens Voortman; Hakki Karagozoglu; Stijn van Weert; Mira Korte; Ruud Frambach; Margot Fleuren; Jan-Jaap Hendrickx; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Hayley Wright; Louise Moody; Becky Whiteman; Michael McGillion; Wendy Clyne; Gemma Pearce; Andy Turner; Faith Martin Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 5.428