31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of Psychological Intervention on Fear of Cancer Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          PURPOSE

          Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significantly distressing problem that affects a substantial number of patients with and survivors of cancer; however, the overall efficacy of available psychological interventions on FCR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated this in the present systematic review and meta-analysis.

          METHODS

          We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated the effect of psychological interventions on FCR among patients with and survivors of cancer. Controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis, and the moderating influence of study characteristics on the effect were examined. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system. Open trials were narratively reviewed to explore ongoing developments in the field (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42017076514).

          RESULTS

          A total of 23 controlled trials (21 randomized controlled trials) and nine open trials were included. Small effects (Hedges’s g) were found both at postintervention ( g = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46; P < .001) and at follow-up ( g = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.40; P < .001). Effects at postintervention of contemporary cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs; g = 0.42) were larger than those of traditional CBTs ( g = 0.24; β = .22; 95% CI, .04 to .41; P = .018). At follow-up, larger effects were associated with shorter time to follow-up (β = −.01; 95% CI, −.01 to −.00; P = .027) and group-based formats (β = .18; 95% CI, .01 to .36; P = .041). A GRADE evaluation indicated evidence of moderate strength for effects of psychological intervention for FCR.

          CONCLUSION

          Psychological interventions for FCR revealed a small but robust effect at postintervention, which was largely maintained at follow-up. Larger postintervention effects were found for contemporary CBTs that were focused on processes of cognition—for example, worry, rumination, and attentional bias—rather than the content, and aimed to change the way in which the individual relates to his or her inner experiences. Future trials could investigate how to further optimize and tailor interventions to individual patients’ FCR presentation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references80

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Oncol
                J. Clin. Oncol
                jco
                jco
                JCO
                Journal of Clinical Oncology
                American Society of Clinical Oncology
                0732-183X
                1527-7755
                1 November 2019
                18 September 2019
                1 November 2020
                : 37
                : 31
                : 2899-2915
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
                [ 2 ]International Psycho-Oncology Society Fear of Cancer Recurrence Special Interest Group, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [ 3 ]Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
                [ 4 ]Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
                [ 5 ]University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom
                [ 6 ]University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [ 7 ]McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
                [ 8 ]Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                [ 9 ]University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [ 10 ]Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research and University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [ 11 ]Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Saguenay, Québec, Canada
                [ 12 ]Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                Author notes
                Robert Zachariae, DMSc, Aarhus University Hospital, Bartholin’s Allé 9, Blvd 1350, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; e-mail: bzach@ 123456aarhus.rm.dk .
                Article
                1900572
                10.1200/JCO.19.00572
                6823887
                31532725
                0521a91f-b8dc-4f33-99da-367b87251ccf
                © 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

                Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 1 July 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 85, Pages: 18
                Categories
                PSC, PATIENT AND SURVIVOR CARE: SUPPORTIVE CARE & SYMPTOM CONTROL
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                v1

                Comments

                Comment on this article