A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: Context matters

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10034/620487
Title:
A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: Context matters
Authors:
Beatty, Lisa; Kemp, Emma; Butow, Phyllis N.; Girgis, Afaf; Schofield, Penelope; Turner, Jane; Hulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.; Levesque, Janelle V.; Koczwara, Bogda
Abstract:
Objectives: To summarise the evidence-base of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), by mode of delivery (group, individual, or low-intensity interventions). To synthesise data regarding core intervention-elements (e.g., intervention duration) and context factors (trial setting, uptake and adherence, demographic characteristics). Methods: Four databases were searched (inception – May 2016): MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), and SCOPUS; reference lists were examined for additional publications. Grey literature was excluded. Outcome data were extracted for survival, distress, quality of life, coping, sleep, fatigue, and/or pain, and summarised through narrative synthesis. Results: Fifteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs), reported across 23 articles, met inclusion criteria: seven group, four individual, and four low-intensity interventions. Overall, interventions improved distress (8/13 RCTs); coping (4/5 RCTs); and pain (4/5 RCTs). No evidence of survival benefit was found. For remaining outcomes, evidence was either insufficient, or too mixed to draw conclusions. Group programs had the strongest evidence-base for efficacy; individual and low-intensity therapy had insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Group interventions had longest intervention durations and lowest uptake and adherence; low-intensity interventions had shortest durations and highest uptake and adherence. Disparities in uptake, adherence and reach were evident, with the demographic profile of participants polarised to young, Caucasian, English-speaking, partnered women. Conclusions: There remains a paucity of psychological interventions for women with MBC. Those that exist have an inconsistent evidence-base across the range of patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate accessible delivery formats that ensure efficacy as well as uptake.
Citation:
Beatty, L., Kemp, E., Butow, P., Girgis, A., Schofield, P., Turner, J., Hulbert-Williams, N. J., Levesque, J. & Koczwara, B. (2017-in press). A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: context matters. Psycho-Oncology.
Publisher:
Wiley-Blackwell
Journal:
Psycho-Oncology
Publication Date:
2017
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10034/620487
DOI:
10.1002/pon.4445
Additional Links:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pon.4445/abstract
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Description:
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Beatty, L., Kemp, E., Butow, P., Girgis, A., Schofield, P., Turner, J., Hulbert-Williams, N. J., Levesque, J. & Koczwara, B. (2017-in press). A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: context matters. Psycho-Oncology, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.4445. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
ISSN:
1057-9249
EISSN:
1099-1611
Appears in Collections:
Psychology

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBeatty, Lisaen
dc.contributor.authorKemp, Emmaen
dc.contributor.authorButow, Phyllis N.en
dc.contributor.authorGirgis, Afafen
dc.contributor.authorSchofield, Penelopeen
dc.contributor.authorTurner, Janeen
dc.contributor.authorHulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.en
dc.contributor.authorLevesque, Janelle V.en
dc.contributor.authorKoczwara, Bogdaen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T13:07:27Z-
dc.date.available2017-05-03T13:07:27Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationBeatty, L., Kemp, E., Butow, P., Girgis, A., Schofield, P., Turner, J., Hulbert-Williams, N. J., Levesque, J. & Koczwara, B. (2017-in press). A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: context matters. Psycho-Oncology.en
dc.identifier.issn1057-9249-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pon.4445-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10034/620487-
dc.descriptionThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Beatty, L., Kemp, E., Butow, P., Girgis, A., Schofield, P., Turner, J., Hulbert-Williams, N. J., Levesque, J. & Koczwara, B. (2017-in press). A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: context matters. Psycho-Oncology, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.4445. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.en
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To summarise the evidence-base of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), by mode of delivery (group, individual, or low-intensity interventions). To synthesise data regarding core intervention-elements (e.g., intervention duration) and context factors (trial setting, uptake and adherence, demographic characteristics). Methods: Four databases were searched (inception – May 2016): MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), and SCOPUS; reference lists were examined for additional publications. Grey literature was excluded. Outcome data were extracted for survival, distress, quality of life, coping, sleep, fatigue, and/or pain, and summarised through narrative synthesis. Results: Fifteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs), reported across 23 articles, met inclusion criteria: seven group, four individual, and four low-intensity interventions. Overall, interventions improved distress (8/13 RCTs); coping (4/5 RCTs); and pain (4/5 RCTs). No evidence of survival benefit was found. For remaining outcomes, evidence was either insufficient, or too mixed to draw conclusions. Group programs had the strongest evidence-base for efficacy; individual and low-intensity therapy had insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Group interventions had longest intervention durations and lowest uptake and adherence; low-intensity interventions had shortest durations and highest uptake and adherence. Disparities in uptake, adherence and reach were evident, with the demographic profile of participants polarised to young, Caucasian, English-speaking, partnered women. Conclusions: There remains a paucity of psychological interventions for women with MBC. Those that exist have an inconsistent evidence-base across the range of patient-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate accessible delivery formats that ensure efficacy as well as uptake.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen
dc.relation.urlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pon.4445/abstracten
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en
dc.subjectCanceren
dc.subjectOncologyen
dc.subjectmetastaticen
dc.subjectpsychological interventionsen
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen
dc.subjecttreatment-modalityen
dc.titleA systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: Context mattersen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.eissn1099-1611-
dc.identifier.journalPsycho-Oncologyen
dc.date.accepted2017-04-22-
or.grant.openaccessYesen
rioxxterms.funderN/Aen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDr Beatty: Funded from NHMRC Grant (GNT 1042942)en
rioxxterms.identifier.projectProf Girgis: Funded from Cancer Institute NSW Granten
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2217-12-31-
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons
All Items in ChesterRep are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.