Karen Kane McDonnell1, Otis L Owens2, Fattona Umari3. 1. Cancer Survivorship Research Center, College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, 1601 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, 29208-4001, USA. Karenkm@mailbox.sc.edu. 2. Healthy Aging Research and Technology (HART) Lab, College of Social Work; Core Faculty, Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 3. College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survivors of lung cancer and their partners often have complex unresolved physical, psychosocial, and behavioral needs that can negatively affect the survivors' and partners' well-being. This systematic review aimed to (1) examine the content and delivery of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and (2) summarize and synthesize the current evidence for effectiveness of MBIs targeting survivors of lung cancer and/or one selected partner (dyads). METHOD: Six databases were searched for interventional studies published in English between 1980 and June 2020 using three terms (lung neoplasms, mindfulness, caregivers). For outcome measures, the interventions focused on behavioral change (meditation, yoga, stretching, breathing), symptom management (dyspnea, fatigue, sleep disruption, anxiety, depression, stress reduction), and knowledge. Two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. One reviewer performed and another independently verified data extraction. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to critically appraise RCTs. RESULTS: Searching yielded 307 records, of which 64 were assessed for eligibility. Six studies investigated the impact of an MBI on survivors and partners. Four studies were single-arm feasibility studies; two were RCTs. Two feasibility studies and one RCT recruited romantic couples whereas the others recruited asymmetrical dyads. The single-arm studies reported strong feasibility and acceptability. RCTs reported significant outcomes for reduced cancer-related distress and depression, and improved QOL, self-compassion, mindfulness skills, and rumination. CONCLUSION: Dyadic intervention research is a growing field. Few interventions target individuals with lung cancer and their partners. No interventions target partners alone. Future research should evaluate rigorous methodologies that enhance the understanding of independent and interdependent health-related effects within dyads and across relationships and settings.
BACKGROUND: Survivors of lung cancer and their partners often have complex unresolved physical, psychosocial, and behavioral needs that can negatively affect the survivors' and partners' well-being. This systematic review aimed to (1) examine the content and delivery of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and (2) summarize and synthesize the current evidence for effectiveness of MBIs targeting survivors of lung cancer and/or one selected partner (dyads). METHOD: Six databases were searched for interventional studies published in English between 1980 and June 2020 using three terms (lung neoplasms, mindfulness, caregivers). For outcome measures, the interventions focused on behavioral change (meditation, yoga, stretching, breathing), symptom management (dyspnea, fatigue, sleep disruption, anxiety, depression, stress reduction), and knowledge. Two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility. One reviewer performed and another independently verified data extraction. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to critically appraise RCTs. RESULTS: Searching yielded 307 records, of which 64 were assessed for eligibility. Six studies investigated the impact of an MBI on survivors and partners. Four studies were single-arm feasibility studies; two were RCTs. Two feasibility studies and one RCT recruited romantic couples whereas the others recruited asymmetrical dyads. The single-arm studies reported strong feasibility and acceptability. RCTs reported significant outcomes for reduced cancer-related distress and depression, and improved QOL, self-compassion, mindfulness skills, and rumination. CONCLUSION: Dyadic intervention research is a growing field. Few interventions target individuals with lung cancer and their partners. No interventions target partners alone. Future research should evaluate rigorous methodologies that enhance the understanding of independent and interdependent health-related effects within dyads and across relationships and settings.
Authors: Karen Kane McDonnell; Otis L Owens; DeAnne K Hilfinger Messias; Sue P Heiney; Daniela B Friedman; Callie Campbell; Lisa A Webb Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Nadia Howlader; Gonçalo Forjaz; Meghan J Mooradian; Rafael Meza; Chung Yin Kong; Kathleen A Cronin; Angela B Mariotto; Douglas R Lowy; Eric J Feuer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eleshia J Morrison; Paul J Novotny; Jeff A Sloan; Ping Yang; Christi A Patten; Kathryn J Ruddy; Matthew M Clark Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 4.840