Resilience in advanced cancer caregiving. A systematic review and meta-synthesis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Close relatives provide much of the care to people with cancer. As resilience can shield family caregivers from mental health problems, there has been a burgeoning interest in resilience-promoting interventions. However, the evidence necessary for the development of these interventions is scant and unsynthesized.Aim
To create an overall picture of evidence on resilience in cancer caregiving by a theory-driven meta-synthesis.Design
In this systematically constructed review a thematic synthesis approach has been applied. The original findings were coded and structured deductively according to the theoretical framework. Consequently, the codes were organized inductively into themes and subthemes.Data sources
Through September 2019, five electronic databases were searched for qualitative studies on resilience in cancer caregiving. The search was extended by a supplementary hand search. Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria.Results
The elements of resilience, as described in the pre-defined theoretical framework of Bonanno, are reflected in the lived experiences of family caregivers. The resilience process starts with the diagnosis of advanced cancer and may result in mental wellbeing, benefit finding, and personal growth. The process is influenced by context elements such as individual history, sociocultural background, caregiver characteristics, and the behavior of the supportive network. A repertoire of coping strategies that caregivers use throughout the caregiving process moderates the resilience process.Conclusion
This review and theoretical synthesis reveal key elements of resilience in the process of cancer caregiving, including influencing factors and outcomes. Implications and avenues for further research are discussed.
SUBMITTER: Opsomer S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796166 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo synthesise the available evidence on interventions designed to improve individual resilience.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane and WHO Clinical Trials Registry in order to identify any controlled trials or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving psychological resilience. Pooled effects sizes were calculated using the random-effects model of meta-analysis.Outcome measuresValid and reliable measures of psychological resilience.ResultsOverall, 437 citations were retrieved and 111 peer-reviewed articles were examined in full. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were subject to a quality assessment, with 11 RCTs being included in the final meta-analysis. Programmes were stratified into one of three categories (1) cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based interventions, (2) mindfulness-based interventions or (3) mixed Interventions, those combining CBT and Mindfulness training. A meta-analysis found a moderate positive effect of resilience interventions (0.44 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.64) with subgroup analysis suggesting CBT-based, mindfulness and mixed interventions were effective.ConclusionsResilience interventions based on a combination of CBT and mindfulness techniques appear to have a positive impact on individual resilience.
| S-EPMC6009510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy is frequently used to treat advanced gastric cancer (GC). Although it leads to increased overall survival (OS) when added to single agents or chemotherapy doublets, toxicity is also generally increased. The purpose of this meta-analysis study was to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy with and without cisplatin in patients with advanced GC. METHODS: Randomised trials that compared first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy with regimens in which cisplatin was replaced by other agents were identified by electronic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed or random effects model. OS, reported as a hazard ratio (HR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Fourteen trials (5 phase III and 9 phase II), including 2,981 patients, were identified. Overall, chemotherapy regimens without cisplatin significantly improved OS (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; p = 0.003), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90; p = 0.001), and response rate (RR) (OR, 1.25; p = 0.004) when compared to cisplatin-containing regimens. A subgroup analysis according to histology, site of the primary tumour and extent of disease was not possible due to lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cisplatin-based doublets and triplets, combinations in which cisplatin was replaced by new drugs improved outcome and RRs in randomised trials for advanced GC and therefore should be strongly considered in the metastatic setting. A limitation of this meta-analysis is that we cannot identify a subgroup of patients (according to histology, site of primary tumour or burden of metastatic disease) which could derive greater benefit from cisplatin-free chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC3873906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgoundLittle information regarding to the survival advantage of third-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer patients is available. The current study is designed to systematically review and perform meta-analysis on the effect of third-line chemotherapy on progressive or recurrent gastric cancer treatment.MethodsAfter thorough searching of online databases, total 20 articles were included into qualitative systematic review and 6 of them were used to conduct qualitative meta-analysis.ResultsIt was found that the third-line chemotherapy was superior to placebo or best supportive care in terms of prolonging median oval survival (OS) length and progress free survival (PFS) length (Hedges's g for OS?=?-0.315?±?0.077, P?<?.001; and for PFS?=?-0.382?±?0.098, P?<?.001). In addition, the third-line chemotherapy was favored (Hedges's g?=?0.848, P?<?.001) in terms of overall survival rate (Hazard ratio?=?0.679, 95% confidence interval: 0.565-0.816, P?<?.001) or tumor free survival rate (Hazard ratio?=?0.561, 95% confidence interval: 0.444-0.709, P?<?.001).ConclusionThe third-line chemotherapy is superior to the best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer patients who had been pretreated with first-line and second-line chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC5478304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to comprehensively summarize the currently available evidences on the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus erlotinib for treating advanced pancreatic cancer.Methodology/principal findingsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and abstracts of recent major conferences were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Studies that were conducted in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (with or without comparison with gemcitabine alone) and reporting objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, time-to-progression, overall survival, 1-year survival rate and/or adverse events were included. Data on objective response rate, disease control rate, 1-year survival rate and adverse events rate, respectively, were combined mainly by using Meta-Analyst software with a random-effects model. Data on progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival were summarized descriptively. Sixteen studies containing 1,308 advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were included. The reported median progression-free survival (or time-to-progression), median overall survival, 1-year survival rates, objective response rates and disease control rates were 2-9.6 months, 5-12.5 months, 20%-51%, 0%-28.6% and 25.0%-83.3%, respectively. The weighted 1-year survival rate, objective response rate and disease control rate based on studies reporting robust results were 27.9%, 9.1% and 57.0%, respectively. According to the studies with relevant data, the incidences of total and severe adverse events were 96.3% and 62.9%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were leucopenia, rash, diarrhea, vomitting, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, stomatitis, drug-induced liver injury, fatigue and fever. Compared with gemcitabine alone, the progression-free survival and overall survival with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were significantly longer, but there were also more deaths and interstitial lung disease-like syndrome related to this treatment.Conclusions/significanceGemcitabine plus erlotinib represent a new option for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with mild but clinically meaningful additive efficacy compared with gemcitabine alone. Its safety profile is generally acceptable, although careful management is needed for some specific adverse events.
| S-EPMC3589410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.ResultsThe search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.ConclusionsIn the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.
| S-EPMC4097092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To determine the benefits and harms of palliative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare the outcomes for elderly and younger patients. DESIGN:Meta-analysis of individual patient data and published summary statistics from trials for which individual patient data could not be obtained from the investigators. STUDIES:All randomised controlled trials comparing palliative chemotherapy with supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer that were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references, and contacting investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Survival, disease progression, quality of life, and toxicity. RESULTS:13 randomised controlled trials including a total of 1365 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of seven trials that provided individual patient data (866 patients) showed that palliative chemotherapy was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of death (95% confidence interval 24% to 44%). This translates into an absolute improvement in survival of 16% at both six and 12 months and an improvement in median survival of 3.7 months. No age related differences were found in the effectiveness of chemotherapy, but elderly patients were under represented in trials. The overall quality of evidence relating to treatment toxicity, symptom control, and quality of life was poor. CONCLUSIONS:Chemotherapy is effective in prolonging time to disease progression and survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The survival benefit may be underestimated in this analysis as some patients in the control arms received chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC27466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe quality of caregiving in mothers with substance abuse problems appears to be compromised. However, divergent findings, methodological variability, and sample characteristics point to the need for research synthesis.MethodsA comprehensive systematic search was undertaken. Studies were eligible if they (1) compared substance-misusing mothers with non-substance-misusing mothers, (2) involved children from birth to 3 years, and (3) maternal sensitivity and child responsiveness were measured using observational methodology.ResultsA global meta-analysis for maternal sensitivity (n = 24 studies) and child responsiveness (n = 16 studies) on 3433 mother-infant dyads yielded significant population effect sizes and significant heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses found reduced heterogeneity when the meta-analysis was conducted on studies where groups were matched on key demographic characteristics; although the effect size was small, it was still significant for maternal sensitivity but not child responsiveness.ConclusionsCompromised quality of caregiving is found in high-risk, substance-misusing mothers, emphasising the importance of early intervention that draws from attachment-based interventions.
| S-EPMC5398331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:35% of patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable locally advanced disease at diagnosis. Several studies have examined systemic chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin and fluorouracil plus irinotecan and oxaliplatin) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in this patient population.We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed Publisher, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from July 1, 1994, to July 2, 2015, for studies of treatment-naive patients of any age who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival; rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events; and the proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, surgical resection after FOLFIRINOX, and R0 resection. We evaluated survival outcomes with the Kaplan-Meier method with patient-level data. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and the proportion of patients who underwent subsequent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection, were pooled in a random-effects model.We included 13 studies comprising 689 patients, of whom 355 (52%) patients had locally advanced pancreatic cancer. 11 studies, comprising 315 patients with locally advanced disease, reported survival outcomes and were eligible for patient-level meta-analysis. Median overall survival from the start of FOLFIRINOX ranged from 10·0 months (95% CI 4·0-16·0) to 32·7 months (23·1-42·3) across studies with a pooled patient-level median overall survival of 24·2 months (95% CI 21·7-26·8). Median progression-free survival ranged from 3·0 months (95% CI not calculable) to 20·4 months (6·5-34·3) across studies with a patient-level median progression-free survival of 15·0 months (95% 13·8-16·2). In ten studies comprising 490 patients, 296 grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported (60·4 events per 100 patients). No deaths were attributed to FOLFIRINOX toxicity. The proportion of patients who underwent radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy ranged from 31% to 100% across studies. In eight studies, 154 (57%) of 271 patients received radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy after FOLFIRINOX. The pooled proportion of patients who received any radiotherapy treatment was 63·5% (95% CI 43·3-81·6, I(2) 90%). The proportion of patients who underwent surgical resection for locally advanced pancreatic cancer ranged from 0% to 43%. The proportion of patients who had R0 resection of those who underwent resection ranged from 50% to 100% across studies. In 12 studies, 91 (28%) of 325 patients underwent resection after FOLFIRINOX. The pooled proportion of patients who had resection was 25·9% (95% CI 20·2-31·9, I(2) 24%). R0 resection was reported in 60 (74%) of 81 patients. The pooled proportion of patients who had R0 resection was 78·4% (95% CI 60·2-92·2, I(2) 64%).Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX had a median overall survival of 24·2 months-longer than that reported with gemcitabine (6-13 months). Future research should assess these promising results in a randomised controlled trial, and should establish which patients might benefit from radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or resection after FOLFIRINOX.None.
| S-EPMC5527756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To timely initiate advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer, physicians should identify patients with limited life expectancy. We aimed to identify predictors of mortality. To identify the relevant literature, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and PubMed databases between January 2000-April 2020. Identified studies were assessed on risk-of-bias with a modified QUIPS tool. The main outcomes were predictors and prediction models of mortality within a period of 3-24 months. We included predictors that were studied in ≥2 cancer types in a meta-analysis using a fixed or random-effects model and summarized the discriminative ability of models. We included 68 studies (ranging from 42 to 66,112 patients), of which 24 were low risk-of-bias, and 39 were included in the meta-analysis. Using a fixed-effects model, the predictors of mortality were: the surprise question, performance status, cognitive impairment, (sub)cutaneous metastases, body mass index, comorbidity, serum albumin, and hemoglobin. Using a random-effects model, predictors were: disease stage IV (hazard ratio [HR] 7.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.00-14.36), lung cancer (HR 2.51; 95% CI 1.24-5.06), ECOG performance status 1+ (HR 2.03; 95% CI 1.44-2.86) and 2+ (HR 4.06; 95% CI 2.36-6.98), age (HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.05-1.38), male sex (HR 1.24; 95% CI 1.14-1.36), and Charlson comorbidity score 3+ (HR 1.60; 95% CI 1.11-2.32). Thirteen studies reported on prediction models consisting of different sets of predictors with mostly moderate discriminative ability. To conclude, we identified reasonably accurate non-tumor specific predictors of mortality. Those predictors could guide in developing a more accurate prediction model and in selecting patients for advance care planning.
| S-EPMC8774229 | biostudies-literature