Are psychological interventions effective on anxiety in cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses

Saira Sanjida, Steven M. Mcphail, Joanne Shaw, Jeremy Couper, David Kissane, Melanie A. Price, Monika Janda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: The aims of this meta-analysis were to estimate the overall effect size (ES) of psychological interventions on anxiety in patients with cancer and extract sample and intervention characteristics that influence effectiveness. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL were searched using Medical Subject Heading keywords 'cancer' AND 'anxiety' AND 'psychological intervention' AND 'counselling' AND 'psycho*' AND 'psychotherapy' AND 'psychosocial' AND 'therapy' between January 1993 and June 2017. Results: Seventy-one studies were eligible for the systematic review; among them, 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis calculations. The overall ES was -0.21 (95% confidence interval; -0.30 to -0.13) in favour of the intervention. From subgroup analyses, studies conducted in Asia, enrolling inpatients, focussing on relaxation, of <6-week intervention duration, <30-minute intervention dose per session, and <4 hours of total time of intervention showed moderate ESs ranging from -0.40 to -0.55. Only 2 studies restricted enrolment to prescreened patients with clinically elevated level of anxiety and showed moderate ES of -0.58. Conclusions: Low psychological distress at baseline and nonevidence-based interventions were the main factors identified for low effectiveness. Screening and assessment to determine clinical levels of anxiety in patients with cancer should be considered in future trials as an inclusion criterion before providing psychological interventions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017056132.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages14
JournalPsycho-Oncology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 1 Jan 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Anxiety
  • Cancer
  • Intervention
  • Meta-analysis
  • Psychology
  • Randomised controlled trials
  • Systematic review

Cite this

Sanjida, Saira ; Mcphail, Steven M. ; Shaw, Joanne ; Couper, Jeremy ; Kissane, David ; Price, Melanie A. ; Janda, Monika. / Are psychological interventions effective on anxiety in cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses. In: Psycho-Oncology. 2018.
@article{c791b40aa20e41249618df67997150bb,
title = "Are psychological interventions effective on anxiety in cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses",
abstract = "Objective: The aims of this meta-analysis were to estimate the overall effect size (ES) of psychological interventions on anxiety in patients with cancer and extract sample and intervention characteristics that influence effectiveness. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL were searched using Medical Subject Heading keywords 'cancer' AND 'anxiety' AND 'psychological intervention' AND 'counselling' AND 'psycho*' AND 'psychotherapy' AND 'psychosocial' AND 'therapy' between January 1993 and June 2017. Results: Seventy-one studies were eligible for the systematic review; among them, 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis calculations. The overall ES was -0.21 (95{\%} confidence interval; -0.30 to -0.13) in favour of the intervention. From subgroup analyses, studies conducted in Asia, enrolling inpatients, focussing on relaxation, of <6-week intervention duration, <30-minute intervention dose per session, and <4 hours of total time of intervention showed moderate ESs ranging from -0.40 to -0.55. Only 2 studies restricted enrolment to prescreened patients with clinically elevated level of anxiety and showed moderate ES of -0.58. Conclusions: Low psychological distress at baseline and nonevidence-based interventions were the main factors identified for low effectiveness. Screening and assessment to determine clinical levels of anxiety in patients with cancer should be considered in future trials as an inclusion criterion before providing psychological interventions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017056132.",
keywords = "Anxiety, Cancer, Intervention, Meta-analysis, Psychology, Randomised controlled trials, Systematic review",
author = "Saira Sanjida and Mcphail, {Steven M.} and Joanne Shaw and Jeremy Couper and David Kissane and Price, {Melanie A.} and Monika Janda",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/pon.4794",
language = "English",
journal = "Psycho-Oncology",
issn = "1057-9249",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",

}

Are psychological interventions effective on anxiety in cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses. / Sanjida, Saira; Mcphail, Steven M.; Shaw, Joanne; Couper, Jeremy; Kissane, David; Price, Melanie A.; Janda, Monika.

In: Psycho-Oncology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are psychological interventions effective on anxiety in cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analyses

AU - Sanjida, Saira

AU - Mcphail, Steven M.

AU - Shaw, Joanne

AU - Couper, Jeremy

AU - Kissane, David

AU - Price, Melanie A.

AU - Janda, Monika

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objective: The aims of this meta-analysis were to estimate the overall effect size (ES) of psychological interventions on anxiety in patients with cancer and extract sample and intervention characteristics that influence effectiveness. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL were searched using Medical Subject Heading keywords 'cancer' AND 'anxiety' AND 'psychological intervention' AND 'counselling' AND 'psycho*' AND 'psychotherapy' AND 'psychosocial' AND 'therapy' between January 1993 and June 2017. Results: Seventy-one studies were eligible for the systematic review; among them, 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis calculations. The overall ES was -0.21 (95% confidence interval; -0.30 to -0.13) in favour of the intervention. From subgroup analyses, studies conducted in Asia, enrolling inpatients, focussing on relaxation, of <6-week intervention duration, <30-minute intervention dose per session, and <4 hours of total time of intervention showed moderate ESs ranging from -0.40 to -0.55. Only 2 studies restricted enrolment to prescreened patients with clinically elevated level of anxiety and showed moderate ES of -0.58. Conclusions: Low psychological distress at baseline and nonevidence-based interventions were the main factors identified for low effectiveness. Screening and assessment to determine clinical levels of anxiety in patients with cancer should be considered in future trials as an inclusion criterion before providing psychological interventions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017056132.

AB - Objective: The aims of this meta-analysis were to estimate the overall effect size (ES) of psychological interventions on anxiety in patients with cancer and extract sample and intervention characteristics that influence effectiveness. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and CINAHL were searched using Medical Subject Heading keywords 'cancer' AND 'anxiety' AND 'psychological intervention' AND 'counselling' AND 'psycho*' AND 'psychotherapy' AND 'psychosocial' AND 'therapy' between January 1993 and June 2017. Results: Seventy-one studies were eligible for the systematic review; among them, 51 studies were included in the meta-analysis calculations. The overall ES was -0.21 (95% confidence interval; -0.30 to -0.13) in favour of the intervention. From subgroup analyses, studies conducted in Asia, enrolling inpatients, focussing on relaxation, of <6-week intervention duration, <30-minute intervention dose per session, and <4 hours of total time of intervention showed moderate ESs ranging from -0.40 to -0.55. Only 2 studies restricted enrolment to prescreened patients with clinically elevated level of anxiety and showed moderate ES of -0.58. Conclusions: Low psychological distress at baseline and nonevidence-based interventions were the main factors identified for low effectiveness. Screening and assessment to determine clinical levels of anxiety in patients with cancer should be considered in future trials as an inclusion criterion before providing psychological interventions. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017056132.

KW - Anxiety

KW - Cancer

KW - Intervention

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Psychology

KW - Randomised controlled trials

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050884284&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pon.4794

DO - 10.1002/pon.4794

M3 - Article

JO - Psycho-Oncology

JF - Psycho-Oncology

SN - 1057-9249

ER -