Objective Mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly used within psycho‐oncology. Since the publication of the most recent comprehensive meta‐analysis on MBIs in cancer in 2012, the number of published trials has more than doubled. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), testing the efficacy of MBIs on measures of psychological distress (primary outcome) and other health outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. Methods Two authors conducted independent literature searches in electronic databases from first available date to 10 October 2018, selected eligible studies, extracted data for meta‐analysis, and evaluated risk of bias. Results Twenty‐nine independent RCTs (reported in 38 papers) with 3274 participants were included. Small and statistically significant pooled effects of MBIs on combined measures of psychological distress were found at post‐intervention (Hedges's g = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.22‐0.41; P < .001) and follow‐up (g = 0.19; 95%CI: 0.07‐0.30; P < .002). Statistically significant effects were also found at either post‐intervention or follow‐up for a range of self‐reported secondary outcomes, including anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and pain (g: 0.20 to 0.51; p: <.001 to.047). Larger effects of MBIs on psychological distress were found in studies (a) adhering to the original MBI manuals, (b) with younger patients, (c) with passive control conditions, and (d) shorter time to follow‐up. Improvements in mindfulness skills were associated with greater reductions in psychological distress at post‐intervention. Conclusions MBIs appear efficacious in reducing psychological distress and other symptoms in cancer patients and survivors. However, many of the effects were of small magnitude, suggesting a need for intervention optimization research.

MBCT showed a statistically significant, robust, and durable effect on pain intensity, indicating that MBCT may be an efficacious pain rehabilitation strategy for women treated for breast cancer. In addition, the effect on neuropathic pain, a pain type reported by women treated for breast cancer, further suggests the potential of MBCT but should be considered preliminary.

No abstract

Persistent pain after breast cancer treatment is prevalent, and not all patients respond sufficiently to pharmacological treatment. Pain is recognized as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, which includes psychological and social components, and several clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions on pain in cancer patients and survivors. Our aim was to systematically review and quantify the existing research on the effect of psychosocial interventions on pain in breast cancer patients and survivors. Two independent raters reviewed 474 abstracts for eligibility, leading to the identification of 26 independent and eligible studies published between 1983 and 2012, which were assessed for their methodological quality and subjected to meta-analytic evaluation. A total of 1786 participants were included in the analyses. A statistically significant and robust overall effect size was found across all included studies (Hedges g = 0.37, 95 % CI: 0.20-0.40; p < 0.001). However, the effect size was considerably smaller (0.21), when adjusted for possible publication bias. Furthermore, the results were heterogeneous, and when exploring the sources of heterogeneity, studies of higher methodological quality were found to yield a more conservative effect size (g = 0.21, 95 % CI: 0.02-0.41) than studies of poorer quality (g = 0.65, 95 % CI: 0.25-1.04). The results also indicated that patient educational approaches yielded a larger effect size (g = 0.64) than relaxation-based interventions (g = 0.31, 95 % CI: -0.05-0.67) and supportive group therapy (g = 0.17, 95 % CI: 0.02-0.32). Taken together, while suggestive of psychosocial intervention as an effective tool in the management of pain among breast cancer patients and survivors, the results should be interpreted as preliminary. The methodological quality of the existing research varied considerably, and only few studies had selected patients on the basis of the presence of pain and included pain as the primary outcome.