Anao Zhang1,2, Kaipeng Wang3, Kate Blumenstein4, Anna Brose5, Chris Kemp6, Dalton Meister6, Phyllis Solomon7. 1. University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA. zhangan@med.umich.edu. 2. Michigan Medicine Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Program, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. zhangan@med.umich.edu. 3. University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, CO, Denver, USA. 4. Rosalind Franklin University Chicago Medical School, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Wheaton College in Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA. 7. University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice, PA, Philadelphia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CBT for individuals diagnosed with cancer across a broad range of outcome domains, i.e., functional health, psychological health, health behaviors, social relational, and general wellness. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 7 databases, 91 published reviews, and 4 professional websites was performed on August 30th, 2021. English-language clinical trials of CBT for cancer patients/survivors were included. Studies were independently screened, and data were extracted by 2 reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus among the investigative team. A total of 151 clinical trials (154 articles) published between 1986 and 2021 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: CBT was overall effective for cancer patients/survivors in the domains of functional health, g = 0.931, p < 0.001, psychological health, g = 0.379, p < 0.001, and general wellness, g = 0.257, p < 0.001, but ineffective in domains of health behaviors, g = 0.792, p > 0.05, and social relational outcomes, g = 0.319, p > 0.05. Additional subgroup and moderator analyses further revealed CBT's differential treatment effect for different within domain outcomes, across different cancer disease stages, and CBT delivery format. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of the study showed that CBT is an effective treatment for individuals diagnosed with cancer. However, treatment effects differ by important disease- and intervention-related factors, which should be considered when recommending CBT for cancer patients/survivors.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CBT for individuals diagnosed with cancer across a broad range of outcome domains, i.e., functional health, psychological health, health behaviors, social relational, and general wellness. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 7 databases, 91 published reviews, and 4 professional websites was performed on August 30th, 2021. English-language clinical trials of CBT for cancer patients/survivors were included. Studies were independently screened, and data were extracted by 2 reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus among the investigative team. A total of 151 clinical trials (154 articles) published between 1986 and 2021 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: CBT was overall effective for cancer patients/survivors in the domains of functional health, g = 0.931, p < 0.001, psychological health, g = 0.379, p < 0.001, and general wellness, g = 0.257, p < 0.001, but ineffective in domains of health behaviors, g = 0.792, p > 0.05, and social relational outcomes, g = 0.319, p > 0.05. Additional subgroup and moderator analyses further revealed CBT's differential treatment effect for different within domain outcomes, across different cancer disease stages, and CBT delivery format. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of the study showed that CBT is an effective treatment for individuals diagnosed with cancer. However, treatment effects differ by important disease- and intervention-related factors, which should be considered when recommending CBT for cancer patients/survivors.
Authors: Danielle Petricone-Westwood; Georden Jones; Brittany Mutsaers; Caroline Séguin Leclair; Christina Tomei; Geneviève Trudel; Andreas Dinkel; Sophie Lebel Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2019-02
Authors: Vera Atema; Marieke van Leeuwen; Jacobien M Kieffer; Hester S A Oldenburg; Marc van Beurden; Miranda A Gerritsma; Marianne A Kuenen; Peter W Plaisier; Alexander M F Lopes Cardozo; Yvonne E A van Riet; Gijsbert Heuff; Herman Rijna; Suzan van der Meij; Eva M Noorda; Gert-Jan Timmers; Bart C Vrouenraets; Matthé Bollen; Henk van der Veen; Nina Bijker; Myra S Hunter; Neil K Aaronson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles Kamen; Sheila N Garland; Charles E Heckler; Anita R Peoples; Ian R Kleckner; Calvin L Cole; Michael L Perlis; Gary R Morrow; Karen M Mustian; Joseph A Roscoe Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: James Temple; Peter Salmon; Catrin Tudur-Smith; Christopher D Huntley; Peter L Fisher Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Mikiyas Amare Getu; Changying Chen; Wang Panpan; Joanes Faustine Mboineki; Kamala Dhakal; Ruofei Du Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Beth Fordham; Thavapriya Sugavanam; Katherine Edwards; Paul Stallard; Robert Howard; Roshan das Nair; Bethan Copsey; Hopin Lee; Jeremy Howick; Karla Hemming; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 7.723