| 1. |
- Abrahams, Harriët J. G., et al.
(author)
-
Moderators of the effect of psychosocial interventions on fatigue in women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer : Individual patient data meta-analyses
- 2020
-
In: Psycho-Oncology. - : Wiley. - 1057-9249 .- 1099-1611. ; 29:11, s. 1772-1785
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ObjectivePsychosocial interventions can reduce cancer‐related fatigue effectively. However, it is still unclear if intervention effects differ across subgroups of patients. These meta‐analyses aimed at evaluating moderator effects of (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) clinical characteristics, (c) baseline levels of fatigue and other symptoms, and (d) intervention‐related characteristics on the effect of psychosocial interventions on cancer‐related fatigue in patients with non‐metastatic breast and prostate cancer.MethodsData were retrieved from the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) consortium. Potential moderators were studied with meta‐analyses of pooled individual patient data from 14 randomized controlled trials through linear mixed‐effects models with interaction tests. The analyses were conducted separately in patients with breast (n = 1091) and prostate cancer (n = 1008).ResultsStatistically significant, small overall effects of psychosocial interventions on fatigue were found (breast cancer: β = −0.19 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) = −0.30; −0.08]; prostate cancer: β = −0.11 [95%CI = −0.21; −0.00]). In both patient groups, intervention effects did not differ significantly by sociodemographic or clinical characteristics, nor by baseline levels of fatigue or pain. For intervention‐related moderators (only tested among women with breast cancer), statistically significant larger effects were found for cognitive behavioral therapy as intervention strategy (β = −0.27 [95%CI = −0.40; −0.15]), fatigue‐specific interventions (β = −0.48 [95%CI = −0.79; −0.18]), and interventions that only targeted patients with clinically relevant fatigue (β = −0.85 [95%CI = −1.40; −0.30]).ConclusionsOur findings did not provide evidence that any selected demographic or clinical characteristic, or baseline levels of fatigue or pain, moderated effects of psychosocial interventions on fatigue. A specific focus on decreasing fatigue seems beneficial for patients with breast cancer with clinically relevant fatigue.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mujcic, Ajla, et al.
(author)
-
The effectiveness of distance-based interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol moderation among cancer survivors : A meta-analysis
- 2020
-
In: Psycho-Oncology. - : Wiley. - 1057-9249 .- 1099-1611. ; 29:1, s. 49-60
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated. Results A total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P = .007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.31, P = .24). Conclusions Distance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.
|
|
