Improving psychosocial outcomes for caregivers of people with poor prognosis gastrointestinal cancers: a randomized controlled trial (Family Connect)

Shaw, Joanne; Young, Jane; Butow, Phyllis; Badgery‐Parker, Tim; Durcinoska, Ivana; Harrison, James D.; Davidson, Patricia M.; Martín, David; Sandroussi, Charbel; Hollands, Michael; Joseph, David; Das, Amitabha; Lam, Vincent; Johnston, Emma; Solomon, Michael J.

doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2817-3

Cited by 38 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Five studies reported significant differences in Quality of Life aspects: three of them showed significant effects in all dimensions of Quality of Life [52,65,67]; Two studies showed significant effects in spiritual and social well-being [59,65], while one study [60] showed significant outcomes in social well-being. Emotional distress or stress symptoms revealed significant differences between pre-and post-treatment in five of the considered studies [50,52,65,67,69], while both depressive symptoms [55,57,65] and perceived social support [62,65,66] improved in three different trials. Furthermore, included articles reported significant effects -albeit smaller -in other measured outcomes: after the completion of the interventions, family members also experienced less anxiety, less sense of disruptiveness, hopelessness and uncertainty, less burden, and negative appraisal of caregiving.…”

Section: Measured Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Most of the studies were conducted in the USA (see Table 1), except for three studies carried out in Australia [50,62], one in Sweden [63] and one in Canada [48]. …”

Section: Caregiver Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…relationship with partner, perception of patient's health condition). In the former, the most examined constructs are Quality of Life [50,52,54,56,59,62,[64][65][66][67], and Distress [50,52,53,59,61,62,65,[67][68][69]. To assess Quality of Life different tools were used including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT-G) (n = 4), the Short Form (SF) 36-item and 12-item version (n = 2), the CG QOL Scale-Cancer (CQOL-C) (n = 2), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 1), the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item short form (MOS SF-12) (n = 1), the UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (n=1).…”

Section: Measured Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In twelve papers an intervention was developed an intervention for a unique type of cancer patients [49,[51][52][53][54]58,60,61,65,66,68,70], while the others implemented telemedicine tools for a multifaceted sample including patients with different cancer diagnoses [48,50,[55][56][57]59,[62][63][64]67,71].…”

Section: Ehealth Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight of them were conducted by prepared nurses [48,52,54,56,59,61,62,71]; four were carried out by social workers [60,65,68,70]; three were operated at a distance by carers distance using web-based platforms [51,55,58]. In three randomized trials the intervention was delivered by clinical psychologists [53,62,69], while in another trial a genetic counsellor conducted the telehealth risk communication to motivate colonoscopy [49]. Two studies provided psychosocial support via a multidisciplinary team including a chaplain, counsellor, dietician, physiotherapist, and physician [63], or a clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, advanced practice nurse, hospital chaplain, clinical social worker, physiatrist, and physical therapist [64].…”

Section: Fig3 Intervention Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Marzorati¹,

Renzi²,

Russell-Edu³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Measured Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Most of the studies were conducted in the USA (see Table 1), except for three studies carried out in Australia [50,62], one in Sweden [63] and one in Canada [48]. …”

Section: Caregiver Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measured Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ehealth Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fig3 Intervention Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Marzorati¹,

Renzi²,

Russell-Edu³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Health Care Utilization Following Interventions to Improve Social Well-Being

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceIt has been suggested that interventions that aim to improve social well-being may contribute to decreased health care use; however, such evidence has not been fully systematically synthesized.ObjectiveTo systematically review and meta-analyze available evidence on the associations between psychosocial interventions and health care utilization.Data SourcesMedline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Scopus, Google Scholar, and reference lists of systematic reviews were searched from inception until November 31, 2022.Study SelectionIncluded studies were randomized clinical trials reporting on both health care utilization and social well-being outcomes.Data Extraction and SynthesisThe reporting of the systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Full-text and quality assessments were conducted by 2 reviewers independently. Multilevel random-effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize the data. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the characteristics associated with decreased health care use.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe outcome of interest was health care utilization, including primary, emergency, inpatient, and outpatient care services. Social well-being was measured as social support, social participation, social relationships, community support, social integration, or loneliness.ResultsA total of 41 studies were retrieved from 18 969 citations; 37 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Data were analyzed for 7842 participants, including 2745 older adults, 1579 young women considered to be at risk of social and mental health disadvantages, 1118 people with chronic illnesses, 1597 people with mental illnesses, and 803 caregivers. The odds ratio (OR) random-effects model showed an overall reduction in health care use (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.97), but the standardized mean difference (SMD) random effect model showed no association. An improvement in health care utilization was observed in association with social support interventions (SMD, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.45) but not in loneliness interventions. Subgroup analysis indicated a reduced length of inpatient visits (SMD, −0.35; 95% CI, −0.61 to −0.09) and number of emergency care visits (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.96) following the intervention. However, an increase in outpatient care associated with psychosocial interventions was observed (SMD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.62). The largest reductions in health care use were associated with interventions among caregivers (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.71) and individuals with mental illnesses (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.74).ConclusionsThese findings suggest that psychosocial interventions were associated with most measures of health care utilization. As the association differed by participant and intervention delivery characteristics, these characteristics should be considered in the design of future interventions.

show abstract