Dataset Information

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Meaning and purpose in life are associated with the mental and physical health of patients with cancer and survivors and also constitute highly valued outcomes in themselves. Because meaning and purpose are often threatened by a cancer diagnosis and treatment, interventions have been developed to promote meaning and purpose. The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning/purpose in adults with cancer and tested potential moderators of intervention effects. Six literature databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs of psychosocial interventions in which meaning or purpose was an outcome. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, rater pairs extracted and evaluated data for quality. Findings were synthesized across studies with standard meta-analytic methods, including meta-regression with robust variance estimation and risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis. Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, and they encompassed 82 treatment effects among 2305 patients/survivors. Psychosocial interventions were associated with significant improvements in meaning/purpose (g = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.52; P < .0001). Interventions designed to enhance meaning/purpose (g = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.60) demonstrated significantly higher effect sizes than those targeting other primary outcomes (g = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.27; P = .009). Few other intervention, clinical, or demographic characteristics tested were significant moderators. In conclusion, the results suggest that psychosocial interventions are associated with small to medium effects in enhancing meaning/purpose among patients with cancer, and the benefits are comparable to those of interventions designed to reduce depression, pain, and fatigue in patients with cancer. Methodological concerns include small samples and ambiguity regarding allocation concealment. Future research should focus on explicitly meaning-centered interventions and identify optimal treatment or survivorship phases for implementation.

SUBMITTER: Park CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6602826 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Park Crystal L CL Pustejovsky James E JE Trevino Kelly K Sherman Allen C AC Esposito Craig C Berendsen Mark M Salsman John M JM

Cancer 20190429 14

Meaning and purpose in life are associated with the mental and physical health of patients with cancer and survivors and also constitute highly valued outcomes in themselves. Because meaning and purpose are often threatened by a cancer diagnosis and treatment, interventions have been developed to promote meaning and purpose. The present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning/purpose in adults with cancer and tested potentia ...[more]

PMID: 31034600

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

Project description:Purpose: A number of studies, including systematic reviews, show beneficial effects of psychosocial interventions for people with diabetes mellitus; however, they have not been assessed using meta-analysis. The purpose of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is to investigate the effects of psychosocial interventions on depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life and self-efficacy in individuals with diabetes mellitus. Methods: The databases Pubmed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and SocINDEX were searched with no year restriction. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials published in English that included individuals diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, aged 18 years or above, who engaged in a psychosocial intervention, with outcome measures addressing depressive or anxiety symptomology, quality of life or self-efficacy. Eligible studies needed to compare the intervention to usual care. Study selection was completed using Covidence and meta-analysis was undertaken using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies investigated the effects of psychosocial interventions and showed a medium to large benefit for depressive symptoms (SMD: -0.70; CI: -1.27, -0.13) which persisted at follow up (SMD: -1.54, CI: -2.97, -0.12). Similar results were not seen immediately post-intervention in the three studies that assessed anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.30; CI: -0.69, 0.10); however, a medium beneficial effect was seen at follow up (SMD = -0.61, CI = -0.92 to -0.31). Small benefits were seen in the three studies assessing quality of life outcomes (SMD: 0.30, CI: 0.06, 0.55). No benefit was seen in the two studies assessing self-efficacy (SMD: 0.23, CI: -0.11, 0.57). Conclusions: The results of the current study provide preliminary evidence that psychosocial interventions, compared to usual care, reduce depressive symptoms, and may improve quality of life in individuals with diabetes. However, only a few studies were included and the clinical significance of these findings is unknown.

Project description:Objective To assess whether weight loss interventions for adults with obesity affect all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and body weight.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using random effects, estimating risk ratios, and mean differences. Heterogeneity investigated using Cochran's Q and I2 statistics. Quality of evidence assessed by GRADE criteria.Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and full texts in our trials' registry for data not evident in databases. Authors were contacted for unpublished data.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies RCTs of dietary interventions targeting weight loss, with or without exercise advice or programmes, for adults with obesity and follow-up ?1 year.Results 54 RCTs with 30?206 participants were identified. All but one trial evaluated low fat, weight reducing diets. For the primary outcome, high quality evidence showed that weight loss interventions decrease all cause mortality (34 trials, 685 events; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.95), with six fewer deaths per 1000 participants (95% confidence interval two to 10). For other primary outcomes moderate quality evidence showed an effect on cardiovascular mortality (eight trials, 134 events; risk ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.31), and very low quality evidence showed an effect on cancer mortality (eight trials, 34 events; risk ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.11). Twenty four trials (15?176 participants) reported high quality evidence on participants developing new cardiovascular events (1043 events; risk ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.04). Nineteen trials (6330 participants) provided very low quality evidence on participants developing new cancers (103 events; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.36).Conclusions Weight reducing diets, usually low in fat and saturated fat, with or without exercise advice or programmes, may reduce premature all cause mortality in adults with obesity.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016033217.

Dataset Information

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets