Coping and communication-enhancing intervention versus supportive counseling for women diagnosed with gynecological cancers.

Abstract

This study compared the efficacy of 2 psychological interventions, a coping and communication-enhancing intervention (CCI) and supportive counseling (SC), in reducing depressive symptoms and cancer-specific distress of women diagnosed with gynecological cancer. Demographic, medical, and psychological moderators of intervention effects were evaluated. Three hundred fifty-three women with gynecological cancer were randomly assigned to 7 sessions of CCI, 7 sessions of SC, or usual care. Intent-to-treat growth curve analyses indicated that participants assigned to CCI and SC reported lower depressive symptoms than participants assigned to usual care at the 6- and 9-month follow-ups. Women with greater than average increases in physician-rated physical symptoms and/or women who were more expressive of positive emotions benefited more from SC than women with lower than average increases in symptom scores and/or women who were less expressive of positive emotions. These findings suggest that both interventions may be effective in treating depressive symptoms among patients with gynecological cancer. Future research should evaluate whether bolstering both psychological interventions with additional intervention sessions and topics in the disease trajectory will result in persistent long-term effects.

Effect of Group Therapy on Psychological Symptoms and Quality of Life in Turkish Patients with Breast Cancer

“…The types of group interventions distinguished in psycho-oncological studies are self-help groups, social support groups, psycho-education, cognitive behavioral oriented 'stress management/coping skills training', psychodynamic therapy, experiential existential centered therapy, and mindfulness based stress reduction training. Stress management appeared to be more efficacious than social support alone, though one study found similar effects of a coping intervention and supportive counseling (Manne et al, 2007). Helgeson et al (2000) compared to three support group interventions with the control group.…”

“…Although there was evidence of short-term benefit for some psychological outcomes, in general these were not sustained at follow-up post treatment survivorship in patients with breast cancer. Various group interventions have been compared in literature (Helgeson et al, 2000;Manne et al, 2007;Faller et al, 2009;Goerling et al, 2009). The types of group interventions distinguished in psycho-oncological studies are self-help groups, social support groups, psycho-education, cognitive behavioral oriented 'stress management/coping skills training', psychodynamic therapy, experiential existential centered therapy, and mindfulness based stress reduction training.…”

RCT of a psychological intervention for patients with cancer: I. Mechanisms of change.

“…It is important to note that studies with both psychotherapy and primary care outpatients have identified associations between satisfaction and adherence, including appointment keeping (Dearing et al, 2005), compliance with treatment recommendations (Hirsh et al, 2005), and medication use (Barfod et al, 2005). When asked, patients with cancer are typically satisfied with what psychological interventions have to offer (Petersson, Berglund, Brodin, Glimelius, & Sjoden, 2000;Manne et al, 2007). More specific questions have found that, among interventions that included relaxation, it was the component rated as most helpful; also highly rated has been provision of information about cancer, treatments, and side effects (Berglund, Petersson, Eriksson, & Haggman, 2003;Petersson et al, 2000).…”

A comparison of younger and older couples coping with breast cancer : examining the relationship among mutuality, dyadic coping, and quality of life of patients and partners.

“…In the same study better mental and physical health-related quality of life of partners at baseline were associated to a 30% reduction in survivors' depressed mood risk, indicating scores were identied at follow-up when members of the dyad divege in their amount of disclosure (Regan, Lambert, Kelly, Falconier, Kissane, & Levesque, 2015a). The negative effect on the couple relationship was identified even when protective buffering was implemented with the goal to prevent negative emotions (Langer et al, 2009;Manne et al, 2007).…”

“…Evidence from research studies applying this framework to couples coping with diverse stressors indicate that active engagement is positively associated to reduced psychological distress, higher self-efficacy, and higher relationship functioning Kuijer et al, 2000). On the contrary protective buffering has been linked to negative relational and psychosocial outcomes 1991;Kuijer et al, 2000;Manne et al, 2007).…”