| Literature DB >> 32382306 |
Wenjing Fu1,2, Yan Huang1,2, Xing Liu1,2, Jianhua Ren1,2, Mengqin Zhang1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the evidence of art therapy on the psychological outcome, quality of life (QOL), and cancer-related symptoms in women with gynecological cancer.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32382306 PMCID: PMC7196149 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8063172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Retrieval strategy.
Study characteristics.
| Author (date) | Design | Participants ( | Intervention | Comparison | Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcântara-Silva et al. (2018) | RCT | Radiotherapy cancer patients (116), including 27 gynecological patients | 30 to 40 minutes sessions of music therapy implemented by the therapist during the first week of radiotherapy, on the week of the intermediary phase, and during the last week of radiotherapy. Twice a week in the hospital | Ordinary radiotherapy | Fatigue (FACT-F); quality of life (FACT-G); depression (BDI) | FACT-F results were significant regarding trial outcome index ( |
|
| ||||||
| Lee et al. (2012) | RCT | Cancer patients who were about to receive chemotherapy for the first time (40), including 2 gynecological patients | 25 min of monochord (MC) sounds was used as music therapy. There was a verbal introduction (4 min) before and a silent period (5 min) after each treatment, producing a total listening time of 34 min, from the second to the fifth sessions of chemotherapy. Research supported by the therapist | Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) | Each session was investigated before and after using SAI and a questionnaire about the patient's physical and psychological states. For the first and the last sessions, multivariate electroencephalogram (EEG) signals were recorded. | Both groups showed significantly reduced anxiety and improved physical and psychological state. EEG data demonstrated that both treatments were associated with an increase of posterior theta band activity and a decrease of midfrontal beta band activity |
|
| ||||||
| Wiswell et al. (2019) | Quasiexperiment study | Patients with gynecologic cancer receiving chemotherapy (16) | Five sessions of art therapy, consisting of drawing, printmaking, mandala, collage, during the chemotherapy were delivered by an art therapist. Each session was approximately 40–50 min | No | Quality of life (FACT-G) | The mean FACT-G score before chemotherapy was 82.3, and after art therapy was 78.6. The mean change in QOL was −3.7 points. A supplemental questionnaire indicated that 15 of 16 patients felt that art therapy was beneficial at each session |
|
| ||||||
| Lee et al. (2017) | Quasiexperiment study | Radiotherapy cancer patients (20), including cervix cancer patient (1) | The art therapy took place in two parts comprising 4 sessions of famous painting appreciation and 4 sessions of creative artwork generation; these 30 min sessions were performed by art therapist twice weekly over four weeks | No | Cancer-related distress (HADS, HDRS, ESAS) | Significant improvements in HADS anxiety and total scores were observed. HDRS scores demonstrated significant decreases. Fewer patients met the HADS or HDRS criteria for severe anxiety or depression after the intervention. No changes in ESAS mean scores were observed |
|
| ||||||
| Hammer et al. (2013) | Qualitative research | Newly diagnosed with gynecologic oncological patients (15) | Drawings. It was not mentioned whether a therapist was involved | No | Analyze the drawings and interview texts | Inner willpower, experiences in open nature, and closeness to loved ones contribute to hope when newly diagnosed with gynecologic cancer. Drawings and later interviews give a new understanding of the experience of hope |
|
| ||||||
| La cour et al. (2016) | Qualitative research | Cancer patients (10) who had received surgical treatment, including gynecological patients (8) with their relatives | Storytelling combined with dancing and crafts was a part of a rehabilitation course conducted twice by counselors | No | Cancer-related concerns. Data were generated through ethnographic fieldwork, including observations, conversations, and interviews. Participant observations and conversations were carried out during the course. Interviews were conducted one month later | It provided the patients and their relatives with strategies to manage cancer-related concerns |
|
| ||||||
| Ginsburgs and Goodill (2009) | Case report | Ovarian cancer patient had a hysterectomy and was currently receiving chemotherapy, being treated with radiotherapy (1) | A ten-week dance/movement therapy implemented by the therapist. Sessions were held on a weekly basis for ninety minutes, in a closed group format | The efficacy of clinical outcome variables was not researched. | Only anecdotal evidence suggested the potential benefits of the intervention. The patient was able to gain insight into parts of herself that she had suppressed during her treatments. She expressed less isolated as well as more open to the support available from others. She hoped to join the group again | |
|
| ||||||
| Ben-Arye et al. (2015) | Case report | Recurrent ovarian cancer patient following extensive gynecological surgery, receiving chemotherapy (1) | Weekly music therapy, including Listening to individually tailored music, writing for her own poem and composing tones, conducted by the music therapist along 6 chemotherapy cycles | No | Quality of life: alleviate nausea, fatigue, and pain, relieve anxiety and depression | The patient reported significant improvement of the symptoms that impaired her QOL |
|
| ||||||
| Lee et al. (2015) | Case report | Ovarian cancer patient had a total hysterectomy, receiving chemotherapy (1) | Four sessions of oriental medicine music therapy based on the theories of traditional Korean medicine, twice per week for 2 weeks, for about 1 hour each time, implemented by the therapist | No | Negative and positive feelings (A self-administered questionnaire); subjective health condition (VAS) | Negative feelings decreased from a score of 17 to 7 (41% improvement); positive feelings increased from a score of 3 to 14 (more than a quadruple improvement); the VAS score increased from 40 mm to 70 mm (75% improvement) |
Outcome: FACT-F: functional assessment of cancer therapy fatigue; FACT-G: functional assessment of cancer therapy-general; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; SAI: state anxiety inventory; HADS: hospital anxiety and depression scale; HDRS: Hamilton depression rating scale; ESAS: Edmonton symptom assessment scale; VAS: visual analog scale.
Risk of bias and quality assessment of RCT.
| Item | Yes/no/unclear/not applicable | |
|---|---|---|
| Alcântara-Silva et al. (2018) | Lee et al. (2012) | |
| 1. Was true randomization used for the assignment of participants to treatment groups? | Unclear | Yes |
| 2. Was allocation to treatment groups concealed? | Yes | Unclear |
| 3. Were treatment groups similar at the baseline? | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Were participants blind to treatment assignment? | No | No |
| 5. Were those delivering treatment blind to treatment assignment? | No | No |
| 6. Were outcomes assessors blind to treatment assignment? | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Were treatment groups treated identically other than the intervention of interest? | Unclear | Unclear |
| 8. Was follow-up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analyzed? | Unclear | Unclear |
| 9. Were participants analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? | Unclear | Unclear |
| 10. Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups? | Yes | Yes |
| 11. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? | Yes | Yes |
| 12. Was an appropriate statistical analysis used? | Yes | Yes |
| 13. Was the trial design appropriate, and any deviations from the standard RCT design (individual randomization, parallel groups) accounted for in the conduct and analysis of the trial? | Unclear | Unclear |
Risk of bias and quality assessment of quasiexperiment study.
| Item | Yes/no/unclear/not applicable | |
|---|---|---|
| Wiswell et al. (2019) | Lee et al. (2017) | |
| 1. Is it clear in the study what is the “cause” and what is the “effect” (i.e., there is no confusion about which variable comes first)? | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 3. Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest? | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 4. Was there a control group? | No | No |
| 5. Were there multiple measurements of the outcome, both before and after the intervention/exposure? | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Was follow-up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analyzed? | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in the same way? | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 8. Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Was an appropriate statistical analysis used? | Yes | Yes |
Risk of bias and quality assessment of the qualitative study.
| Item | Yes/no/unclear/not applicable | |
|---|---|---|
| Hammer et al. (2013) | La Cour et al. (2016) | |
| 1. Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology? | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives? | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data? | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data? | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results? | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically? | No | No |
| 7. Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice versa, addressed? | Yes | Yes |
| 8. Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented? | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body? | Yes | Yes |
| 10. Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data? | Yes | Yes |
Risk of bias and quality assessment of the case report.
| Item | Yes/no/unclear/not applicable | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ginsburgs and Goodill (2009) | Ben-Arye et al. (2015) | Lee et al. (2015) | |
| 1. Were patient's demographic characteristics clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Was the patient's history clearly described and presented as a timeline? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Was the current clinical condition of the patient on the presentation clear described? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? | No | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Was the postintervention clinical condition clearly described? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? | No | No | No |
| 8. Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? | Yes | Yes | Yes |