Elsevier

Cancer Treatment Reviews

Volume 35, Issue 5, August 2009, Pages 475-484
Cancer Treatment Reviews

GENERAL AND SUPPORTIVE CARE
Characteristics and methodological quality of 25 years of research investigating psychosocial interventions for cancer patients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.02.003Get rights and content

Summary

The considerable amount of research examining psychosocial interventions for cancer patients makes it important to examine its scope and methodological quality. This comprehensive overview characterizes the field with as few exclusions as possible. A systematic search strategy identified 673 reports comprising 488 unique projects conducted over a 25 year time span. Although the literature on this topic has grown over time, the research was predominantly conducted in the United States (57.0%), largely with breast cancer patients (included in 70.5% of the studies). The intervention approach used most frequently was cognitive behavioral (32.4%), the treatment goal was often improving quality of life generally (69.5%), and the professionals delivering the interventions were typically nurses (29.1%) or psychologists (22.7%). Overall, there was some discrepancy between the types of interventions studied and the types of supportive services available to and sought by cancer patients. Strengths of this research include using randomized designs (62.9%), testing for baseline group equivalence (84.5%), and monitoring treatment, which rose significantly from being used in 48.1–64.4% of projects over time. However, deficiencies in such areas as examining treatment mechanisms and the adequacy of reporting of methodology, essential for useful syntheses of research on these interventions, remain to be addressed. Methodological challenges related to the complexity of this applied research, such as participants seeking treatment outside of research, contamination, and reactions to randomization, also were apparent. Future research could benefit from closer interactions between academic and voluntary sectors and expanding the diversity of participants.

Introduction

At most recent report, more than 11 million Americans were living with cancer.1 Cancer’s diagnosis, treatment, and aftermath present challenges that can contribute to psychological morbidity and can compromise quality of life. Diagnosis involves many stressors and can provoke worries about functioning, social value, finances, burden on one’s family, and death.[2], [3] Cancer treatments produce side effects, such as fatigue, nausea, and changes in appearance and functioning that can be difficult to cope with.[4], [5], [6], [7] After treatment is complete, stressors involve continued medical follow-up; residual physical, interpersonal psychological, and spiritual effects; and practical issues, such as employment, finances, and insurance coverage.8 If cancer progresses despite treatment, worries about the future predominate.9 Late-stage cancer brings existential concerns10 and potentially pain.11 With the recognition of such difficulties, attention in recent decades has been directed at developing and testing interventions to improve the quality of life of individuals coping with cancer.12

Quality of life is subjective and multidimensional. Seven dimensions affected by cancer and its treatment are: (1) physical concerns, (2) functional ability, (3) family well-being, (4) emotional well-being, (5) treatment satisfaction, (6) sexuality and intimacy, and (7) social functioning.13 Accordingly, interventions aimed to improve the quality of life for individuals diagnosed with cancer are diverse and often feature multiple potentially therapeutic components targeted at multiple outcomes.[2], [14] Some types resemble common psychotherapeutic approaches, such as group cognitive behavioral therapy,[15], [16] problem-solving therapy,17 and psychodynamic psychotherapy.18 However, various other approaches also have been tested. Some examples include: written expressive disclosure,19 nurse-administered self-care self-efficacy enhancement,20 complementary and alternative medicine support,21 movement and dance,22 and audiotaped side effect management education.23 Similarly, the range of outcome variables assessed in studies evaluating such interventions (e.g. depression, anxiety, body image, pain, fatigue, fear of recurrence, levels of perceived social support, sexual functioning, marital satisfaction, sleep disruption) reflects this multidimensionality in the conceptualization of quality of life.

Given the now considerable amount of research examining psychosocial interventions for cancer,24 it is important to examine its scope and quality. Such an evaluation can characterize this literature, analyze trends over time, and identify directions for improvement. A comprehensive review also is useful in understanding what types of individuals, with what types of cancers, exposed to what types of psychosocial interventions have been subjected to empirical scrutiny. This can identify understudied populations and determine to what extent available resources for cancer patients have been evaluated.

Attention to methodological quality is also important. In prior reviews, the quality of investigations studying psychological therapies for cancer patients was deemed suboptimal. In Newell et al.’s evaluation of 155 randomized, controlled trials of psychological therapies for adult and child cancer patients, the median quality score was less than one-third of the maximum number of points possible.25 The authors noted that this was likely related to poor reporting of methods. In Rehse and Pukrop’s26 review of 37 published controlled studies investigating psychosocial interventions’ effect on quality of life, studies scoring lower in methodological quality had smaller outcome effect sizes.

Studies of psychosocial interventions for cancer patients have been criticized for narrow inclusion criteria and for being too intensive to allow participation of those most in need27 but such criticisms need to be empirically validated.28 Some investigators have pointed out the dearth of non-European American samples and the typical low statistical power of research in this area.29 Other research has noted the high levels of dropout associated with psychosocial interventions for cancer patients.[30], [31] Such methodological shortcomings may bias estimates of treatment efficacy.[26], [32] Closer attention to methodology and its impact, such as on participation rates, would help direct future inquiry, intervention development, and approaches to improve methodology.

A number of high-quality reviews and meta-analyses have investigated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. For example, Meyer and Mark33 conducted a meta-analysis of 45 randomized, controlled studies of psychosocial interventions with adult cancer patients published between 1979 and 1993; Devine and Westlake34 reviewed 116 studies reported between 1976 and 1993 examining psycho-educational care for cancer patients; Newell and colleagues 25 reviewed randomized, controlled trials published between 1980 and 1998 evaluating the effectiveness of a psychosocial interventions aimed at improving cancer patients’ psychosocial, side effect, immune, or survival outcomes. In addition to reviews selecting studies with particular types of designs or levels of quality, more focused reviews have concentrated on patients with particular types of cancer, such as breast,35or stages of cancer, such as advanced,36 particular outcomes, such as fatigue,37 depression and anxiety,[38], [39] or survival,[40], [41] or particular types of interventions, such as physical activity,42 or guided imagery.43

Previous reviews and meta-analyses predominantly have focused on evaluating the extent to which evidence supports interventions’ efficacy. Methodological and reporting limitations often have led to studies being excluded from these reviews.25 By contrast, rather than summarizing outcomes, the purpose of the present review was to characterize the evolving nature and scope of psychosocial cancer intervention research as a whole, with as few exclusions as possible. We therefore conducted a comprehensive synthesis of 25 years of published reports and unpublished dissertations evaluating psychosocial interventions designed to improve the quality of life of cancer patients. We analyzed characteristics of the reports, the participants, the treatments investigated and their delivery, the outcomes assessed, the methodological quality of these studies, and challenges noted by investigators conducting this research. We also examined trends over time in the amount of research being conducted and its methodological quality.

Section snippets

Study identification

Studies included in the review examined psychosocial interventions for adult cancer patients that: (1) reported outcomes on psychological, emotional, behavioral, physiological, functional, or medical status; (2) were first reported as a published article or an unpublished dissertation between January 1980 and December 2005; and (3) included 10 or more individuals per group. Studies examining interventions aimed at increasing adherence to anti-cancer treatment and focusing exclusively on

Study, investigator, report, and sample characteristics

There was a dramatic increase in the number of studies conducted over the 25 year period, from an average of 10 projects per year appearing in the 1980s, to 22 per year from 1995 to 1999, to 36 per year from 2000 to 2005. The majority of principal investigators was affiliated with a university (75.3%), held a Ph.D. (66.8%), and was female (59.85). The projects most often were funded by private foundations (40.4%) and federal agencies (34.3%), but a fairly high proportion (36.3%) did not report

Discussion

This overview reveals the topography of the field of psychosocial intervention studies for adult cancer patients conducted over two-and-a-half decades. Research in this area increased dramatically, reflecting enthusiasm and support for providing empirically-based assistance and tools for individuals coping with cancer’s diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. This conclusion concurs with that of a recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report which asserted there is a “wealth” of psychosocial

Conclusion

This comprehensive characterization of the literature investigating psychosocial interventions for cancer patients documented its dramatic growth, and its wide scope with respect to treatment approaches, target difficulties, and types of patients. Because of the disconnects between interventions that are reported on in the research literature and the services that are sought by, and available to, cancer patients, and discrepancy between the characteristics of research participants and the

Conflict of interest

I assert that I do not, nor do my coauthors, have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this research that would represent a conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (R01 CA100810) to Anne Moyer. We are grateful to John W. Finney for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References (105)

  • L. Shepherd et al.

    The utility of videoconferencing to provide innovative delivery of psychological treatment for rural cancer patients: results of a pilot study

    J Pain Symptom Manage

    (2006)
  • Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al., editors. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2005....
  • B.E. Meyerowitz et al.

    Psychological response to cancer diagnosis and treatment

  • A. Moyer et al.

    Psychosocial sequelae of breast cancer and its treatment

    Ann Behav Med

    (1996)
  • A. Helgeson et al.

    Distress due to unwanted side-effects of prostate cancer treatment is related to impaired well-being (quality of life)

    Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

    (1998)
  • A.S. Denton et al.

    Interventions for the physical aspects of sexual dysfunction in women following pelvic radiotherapy

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2003)
  • J.D. Kallich et al.

    Psychological outcomes associated with anemia-related fatigue in cancer patients

    Oncology

    (2002)
  • E.L. McGarvey et al.

    Psychological sequelae and alopecia among women with cancer

    Cancer Pract

    (2001)
  • C.M. Alfano et al.

    The experience of survival for patients: psychosocial adjustment

  • H. Svensson et al.

    Psychological reactions to progression of metastatic breast cancer – an interview study

    Cancer Nurs

    (2009)
  • Institute of Medicine. Cancer care for the whole patient. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press;...
  • D. Cella

    Quality of life measurement in oncology

  • B.L. Andersen

    A biobehavioral model for psychological interventions

  • A. Bottomley

    Group cognitive behavioral therapy interventions with cancer patients: a review of the literature

    Eur J Cancer Care

    (1996)
  • F.J. Penedo et al.

    Cognitive behavioral stress management improves stress management skills and quality of life in men recovering from treatment of prostate carcinoma

    Cancer

    (2004)
  • A.M. Nezu et al.

    Project genesis: assessing the efficacy of problem-solving therapy for distressed adult cancer patients

    J Consult Clin Psychol

    (2003)
  • N. Straker

    Psychodynamic psychotherapy for cancer patients

    J Psychother Pr Res

    (1998)
  • H.J. Rosenberg et al.

    Expressive disclosure and health outcomes in a prostate cancer population

    Int J Psychiat Med

    (2002)
  • E.L. Lev et al.

    An intervention to increase quality of life and self-care self-efficacy and decrease symptoms in breast cancer patients

    Schol Inq Nurs Pract

    (2001)
  • S.L. Sandel et al.

    Dance and movement program improves quality of life measures in breast cancer survivors

    Cancer Nurs

    (2005)
  • S.A. Williams et al.

    The effect of education in managing side-effects in women receiving chemotherapy for treatment of breast cancer

    Oncol Nurs Forum

    (2004)
  • A. Baum et al.

    Psychosocial intervention and cancer: an introduction

  • S.A. Newell et al.

    Systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients: overview and recommendations for future research

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (2002)
  • J.C. Coyne et al.

    More may not be better in psychosocial interventions for cancer patients

    Health Psychol

    (2001)
  • M.H. Antoni et al.

    Reply to Coyne and Kagee

    Health Psychol

    (2001)
  • L. Baider et al.

    The effect of behavioral intervention on the psychological distress of Holocaust survivors with cancer

    Psychother Psychosom

    (1997)
  • O. Gilbar et al.

    Which cancer patient completes a psychosocial intervention program?

    Psychooncology

    (2002)
  • S.J. Lepore et al.

    Psychological interventions for distress in cancer patients: a review of reviews

    Ann Behav Med

    (2006)
  • T.J. Meyer et al.

    Effects of psychosocial interventions with adult cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized experiments

    Health Psychol

    (1995)
  • E.C. Devine et al.

    The effects of psychoeducational care provided to adults with cancer: meta-analysis of 116 studies

    Oncol Nurs Forum

    (1995)
  • K. Tatrow et al.

    Cognitive behavioral therapy techniques for distress and pain in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis

    J Behav Med

    (2006)
  • R.J. Uitterhoeve et al.

    Psychosocial interventions for patients with advanced cancer – a systematic review of the literature

    Brit J Cancer

    (2004)
  • M. Kangas et al.

    Cancer-related fatigue: a systematic and meta-analytic review of non-pharmacological therapies for cancer patients

    Psychol Bull

    (2008)
  • P.B. Jacobsen et al.

    Psychosocial interventions for anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: achievements and challenges

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2008)
  • T. Sheard et al.

    The effect of psychological interventions on anxiety and depression in cancer patients: results of two meta-analyses

    Brit J Cancer

    (1999)
  • E. Chow et al.

    Does psychosocial intervention improve survival in cancer? A meta-analysis

    Palliat Med

    (2004)
  • K.H. Schmitz et al.

    Controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev

    (2005)
  • L. Roffe et al.

    A systematic review of guided imagery as an adjuvant cancer therapy

    Psychooncology

    (2005)
  • P.E. Shrout et al.

    Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability

    Psychol Bull

    (1979)
  • S. Siegel et al.

    Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences

    (1988)
  • Cited by (68)

    • Symptomatology, assessment, and treatment of anxiety in older adults with cancer

      2021, Journal of Geriatric Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      CBT has also been extensively evaluated in cancer patients [67]. CBT has been shown to be efficacious for depression and anxiety in cancer patients [59,67,68], including when telephone delivered [69,70] and is a cost-effective treatment for psychological distress in cancer care [71–74]. CBT is particularly appropriate for older adults with cancer due to the high adverse effect rates of and limited research on psychotropic medications in this population [75,76].

    • Effects of Qigong on symptom management in cancer patients: A systematic review

      2017, Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Low compliance with protocols and lack of motivation to continue participating influence intervention impact and can be other potential sources of bias and also an indicator that the intervention is inappropriate for the recruited subjects. Many studies included only small samples, thus raising the issue of insufficient power [31]. However, small studies often produce larger effects than large studies do.

    • Effects of Acupuncture, Tuina, Tai Chi, Qigong, and Traditional Chinese Medicine Five-Element Music Therapy on Symptom Management and Quality of Life for Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis

      2016, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Low compliance with protocols and lack of motivation to continue participating influence intervention impact and can be other potential sources of bias and also an indicator that the intervention is inappropriate for the recruited subjects. Many studies included only small samples, thus raising the issue of insufficient power.106 However, small studies often produced larger effects than large studies did.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    d

    Tel.: +1 212 659 5504; fax: +1 212 849 2566.

    e

    Tel.: +1 413 538 2107.

    f

    Tel.: +1 631 632 7875; fax: +1 631 632 7876.

    View full text