Effectiveness of couple-based interventions for prostate cancer patients and their spouses on their quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chen, Wei; Li, Hui; Qin, Nan; Zhou, Jie; Ouyang, Jie; Wang, Kaiyue

doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07532-2

Cited by 5 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 2, 18 reviews were published from 2012 to 2023, 17 of which were published in English and the remaining 1 was published in Chinese. Out of the total of 18 reviews analysed, 9 of them comprised of both English and Chinese original studies (Chen, Gong, & Li, 2022; Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020, 2023; Li & Loke, 2014; Luo et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2023), while the remaining 9 solely comprised of English original studies (Badr & Krebs, 2013; Brandão et al., 2014; Gabriel et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2023; Jonsdottir et al., 2018; McDonnell et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2022; Regan et al., 2012; Song et al., 2021). The main objective of the review was to assess the effectiveness of dyadic interventions in various cancer patients and their caregivers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MAs ( n = 7) included 138 RCTs and 4 quasi‐experimental studies (Badr & Krebs, 2013; Chen, Gong, & Li, 2022; Hu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020, 2023; Pang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). SRs ( n = 11) included 121 RCTS and 40 non‐randomized studies (Brandão et al., 2014; Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Gabriel et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2023; Jonsdottir et al., 2018; Li & Loke, 2014; Luo et al., 2020; McDonnell et al., 2022; Regan et al., 2012; Song et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2023). Eight reviews only included RCTs (Badr & Krebs, 2013; Brandão et al., 2014; Chen, Gong, & Li, 2022; Hu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2023; Pang et al., 2022; Song et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the reviews conducted, eight employed the Cochrane criteria to evaluate quality (Brandão et al., 2014; Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Guan et al., 2023; Hu et al., 2019; Li et al., 2023; McDonnell et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021), and six adopted the Effective Public Health Practice Project (Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Li et al., 2020; Li & Loke, 2014; Luo et al., 2020; Regan et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2023). The majority of the evaluated interventions focused on skills training, encompassing relationship enhancement, relationship skills programs, emotion‐focused therapy, couple‐based dyadic intervention and partners in coping programs.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the evaluated interventions focused on skills training, encompassing relationship enhancement, relationship skills programs, emotion‐focused therapy, couple‐based dyadic intervention and partners in coping programs. Furthermore, lifestyle interventions, such as dance programs, partner strength training, exercise and muscle relaxation, were explored in eight reviews (Badr & Krebs, 2013; Chen, Gong, & Li, 2022; Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Guan et al., 2023; Jonsdottir et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Pang et al., 2022; Song et al., 2021). Six reviews investigated mindfulness intervention (Chen, Gong, & Li, 2022; Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2020; McDonnell et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2022; Song et al., 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 3 shows that couples who receive dyadic interventions such as relationship enhancement therapy, patient coping training, lifestyle intervention, problem‐solving therapy and symptom‐management witness a significant reduction in their levels of psychological distress (Badr & Krebs, 2013; Brandão et al., 2014; Jonsdottir et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Regan et al., 2012; Song et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2023). However, there is very low‐ to low‐grade evidence to suggest that psychoeducation, mindfulness‐based intervention, emotion‐focused therapy and skills training have inconsistent findings in psychological distress (Badr & Krebs, 2013; Brandão et al., 2014; Jonsdottir et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Li & Loke, 2014; Luo et al., 2020; McDonnell et al., 2022; Regan et al., 2012; Song et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2023); and low‐grade evidence to suggest that psychosexual counselling has no significant effect on distress compared with usual care (Chen, Gong, & Li, 2022; Chen, Li, et al., 2022; Regan et al., 2012).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of dyadic interventions among cancer dyads: An overview of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Sun,

Wang,

Chen

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and ObjectiveTo summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta‐analyses (MAs) regarding the impact of dyadic interventions delivered to both members of a cancer dyad, including a cancer patient and caregiver (e.g. family caregiver, intimate partner).DesignThis overview of SRs was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews statement.MethodsA comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs and MAs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2. The quality of the included SRs/MAs was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsEighteen SRs/MAs undertook quantitative synthesis to assess the impact of dyadic interventions on cancer dyads. Both the credibility of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures were below satisfactory standards. Prior SRs/MAs revealed several limitations such as lack of pre‐published protocols or research objectives, failure to report excluded studies and insufficient details on funding sources for individual studies.ConclusionsDyadic interventions may prove advantageous for the physical health and dyadic adjustment of cancer dyads. Nevertheless, the reported results of dyadic interventions on the psychological health of patient–caregiver dyads affected by cancer are inconsistent. Thus, rigorous and comprehensive studies are requisite to establish reliable evidence for conclusive determinations.Relevance to Clinical PracticeThe findings of this overview can guide healthcare practitioners when considering the use of dyadic interventions for cancer dyads. Moreover, these findings have the potential to enhance the integration of these approaches into clinical practice.Patient or Public ContributionOur paper presents an overview of systematic reviews, and therefore, such specific details may not be relevant to our study.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of dyadic interventions among cancer dyads: An overview of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Sun,

Wang,

Chen

et al. 2023

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Are couple‐based psychological interventions beneficial for the mental health of prostate cancer patients and their spouses? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shen,

Sun,

et al. 2023

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the survival rates for prostate cancer (PCa) have improved, there has been an increasing focus on the mental health of couples affected by this condition. There have been several couple‐based psychological interventions, and yet the impact of this treatment modality on the mental health of PCa patients and their spouses is unclear. Consequently, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, and Web of Science up to March 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impacts of couple‐based psychological interventions on both PCa patients and their spouses. Besides, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to evaluate the methodological quality and potential bias of the included studies. Moreover, statistical analysis and meta‐analysis were performed utilizing Revman 5.4, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was employed to assess the certainty of evidence. A total of nine RCTs were included, utilizing anxiety, depression, distress, communication, and self‐efficacy as outcome indicators to assess mental health. Results demonstrated that couple‐based psychological interventions increased spouses' self‐efficacy (WMD, 0.21; 95% CI: −0.00 ~ 0.42; P = 0.05) and communication (SMD, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.09 ~ 0.59; P = 0.009), while reducing their distress (SMD, −0.21; 95% CI: −0.40 ~ −0.02; P = 0.03). Nonetheless, there is a need for additional research on the effect of couple‐based psychological interventions on the mental health of PCa‐affected couples given the limited evidence supporting this conclusion.

show abstract

Effects of dyadic interventions on psychological outcomes among cancer patients with non-active treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thana,

Miller,

Chintanawat

et al. 2024

J Cancer Surviv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of couple-based interventions for prostate cancer patients and their spouses on their quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Effectiveness of dyadic interventions among cancer dyads: An overview of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Effectiveness of dyadic interventions among cancer dyads: An overview of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Are couple‐based psychological interventions beneficial for the mental health of prostate cancer patients and their spouses? A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effects of dyadic interventions on psychological outcomes among cancer patients with non-active treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About