Harnessing benefits of helping others: A randomized controlled trial testing expressive helping to address survivorship problems after hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Rini, Christine; Austin, Jane E.; Wu, Lisa M.; Winkel, Gary; Valdimarsdottir, Heiðdís; Stanton, Annette L.; Isola, Luis; Rowley, Scott D.; Redd, William H.

doi:10.1037/hea0000024

Cited by 50 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

113

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 64 included studies, 9,51-58,66-119 59 9,51,[54][55][56][57][58][66][67][68][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]88,89,91, were RCTs, and four 52,78,87,92 were non-randomised studies. The remaining study 53 was a matched case-control study.…”

Section: Systematic Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study by Rickett et al 66 is reported in the Facilitated TW section. Here, the studies by Cepeda et al 85 and Rini et al 86 are described. A summary of main characteristics is presented in Table 17.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Three studies 66,85,86 evaluated EW in participants with various types of cancer. The study by Rickett et al 66 is reported in the Facilitated TW section.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rini et al 86 included participants who had had a stem cell transplant for any form of haematological cancer within the previous 9 months to 3 years and not in current relapse. The study was conducted in the USA.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outcomes evaluated in the studies are reported in Table 18. For almost all of the outcomes in the Rini et al study, 86 the results were split into subgroups of high and low survivorship problems rather than whole scores for the groups.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Nyssen

Taylor

Wong

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWriting therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched.Data sourcesDatabases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015).Review methodsFour TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately underInternational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost–consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines.ObjectivesTo review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom.ResultsFrom 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.96 to –0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted acrossallof the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD –0.06, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD –0.04 95% CI –0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW.LimitationDifficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure.ConclusionsOverall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

Section: Systematic Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Three studies 66,85,86 evaluated EW in participants with various types of cancer. The study by Rickett et al 66 is reported in the Facilitated TW section.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Nyssen

Taylor

Wong

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Prosocial Interventions and Health Outcomes

Byrne,

Tan,

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceProsocial interventions encourage voluntary actions that benefit others. Community solidarity in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, expanding mutual aid programs, and health workforce issues have accelerated prosocial health interventions.ObjectiveTo investigate the association of prosocial interventions with health outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies.Data SourcesIn this systematic review and meta-analysis informed by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 5 databases (MEDLINE [via PubMed], Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched from database inception through February 23, 2023. The search included terms for altruism and prosocial behaviors, health outcomes, and study type.Study SelectionIncluded studies, determined by multiple reviewers, compared health outcomes in a prosocial intervention group with a nonintervention group.Data Extraction and SynthesisFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, data extraction and synthesis captured quantitative and qualitative data. To pool data from quantitative studies, random-effects meta-analyses were used to estimate the impact of prosocial interventions. To combine data from quantitative and qualitive studies, data were transformed into qualitative narratives using meta-aggregation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was whether prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of these interventions were assessed.ResultsThe search identified 5229 citations; 30 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies indicated that prosocial interventions were associated with positive health outcomes for givers (17 studies [56.7]) and recipients (8 [26.7%]). Prosocial interventions included acts of kindness (12 studies [40.0%]), cash gifts (7 [23.3%]), pay-it-forward approaches (6 [20.0%]), and expressions of kindness (5 [16.7%]). Improvements were reported in depression, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, vaccine uptake, physical activity, and individual biomarkers. Data from 6 studies (20.0%) demonstrated that pay-it-forward approaches were associated with increased uptake of diagnostic tests or vaccines among vulnerable groups (moderate certainty of evidence). Data from 14 studies (46.7%) suggested that community connectedness facilitated prosocial interventions. Shared vulnerabilities among groups (eg, sexual minority individuals, older adults) may provide a context for collective mobilization to improve health in local communities.Conclusions and RelevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that prosocial interventions were associated with improved health outcomes among vulnerable groups and have been useful for addressing health disparities. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate prosocial interventions.

show abstract

Health‐related quality of life in adult and pediatric survivors

Mitchell

Wiener

Hoag

et al. 2021

Blood and Marrow Transplantation Long Term Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harnessing benefits of helping others: A randomized controlled trial testing expressive helping to address survivorship problems after hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

Abstract: Peer helping through writing benefits transplant survivors with moderate-severe survivorship problems, but only if they have first completed expressive writing.

Cited by 50 publications

References 53 publications

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Prosocial Interventions and Health Outcomes

Health‐related quality of life in adult and pediatric survivors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About