Navigator-guided e-Psychoeducational Intervention for Prostate Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers

Green, B. Lee; Small, Brent J.; Damonte, Jennifer; Ikan, Janelle Barrera

doi:10.25302/1.2019.ce.12115285

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This systematic review highlights the positive outcomes of web‐based interventions and offers suggestions on developing patient‐caregiver dyadic web‐based interventions for future research. Although there are many advantages to web‐based interventions, such as providing a multiplicity of cancer‐related information, time efficiency, convenience, and anonymity, we should not underestimate the strengths of traditional interventions, particularly for the target populations of older adults and those living in underdeveloped areas. Rather than replacing traditional interventions, web‐based interventions should serve to supplement and enhance face‐to‐face interventions supporting patients with cancer and caregivers coping with cancer as a unit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical literature review of dyadic web‐based interventions to support cancer patients and their caregivers, and directions for future research

Luo

Li-hong

et al. 2019

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: With the rapid development of the Internet, e-health interventions are becoming popular and are showing positive impacts. Cancer affects not only patients but also their caregivers, leading to a recognition that cancer patient-caregiver dyads cope with cancer as a unit rather than as individuals. The objectives of this paper are to explore web-based interventions for cancer patient-caregiver dyads coping with cancer from the aspects of intervention content, delivery format, outcome measurements, and outcomes and to provide recommendations on developing patientcaregiver dyadic web-based interventions for future research. Methods: Literature focused on cancer patient-caregiver dyadic web-based interventions, published in English or Chinese from the launch of five databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBase, Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded) to April 2019, was systematically searched. Manual searching through the references of full-text articles was also conducted. Results: Of a total of 812 articles, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria. The content of these web-based dyadic interventions mainly included information support, communication and support, skills-building, and psycho-education. These web-based interventions reported a small to large positive impact on patients with cancer and their caregivers in terms of physical health (d = 0.17-0.75), psychological health (d = 0.04-0.80), overall quality of life (d = 0.20-0.68), and dyadic relationship (d = 0.30-0.95). Conclusions: Web-based dyadic interventions can be designed for tailored content, which benefits both patients and their caregivers. Future research on cancer patient-caregiver web-based interventions should be conducted in diverse cultures. K E Y W O R D S cancer, caregiver, dyadic intervention, e-health, oncology, patient, web-based intervention Xingjuan Luo and Lihong Gao contributed equally to this work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical literature review of dyadic web‐based interventions to support cancer patients and their caregivers, and directions for future research

Luo

Li-hong

et al. 2019

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After screening titles and abstracts and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 70 records with 65 unique studies (for multiple manuscripts published from the same intervention study, only primary manuscripts were included) were included in the systematic review [ 35 - 99 ] and 32 studies [ 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 50 , 53 - 55 , 57 , 64 , 66 , 68 - 72 , 74 , 77 , 80 , 82 , 83 , 86 , 88 , 91 , 93 , 95 , 96 , 99 ] with available data were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 33 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis because either data were unavailable to calculate the effect size (n=14) [ 42 , 46 , 51 , 62 , 73 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 84 , 87 , 89 , 94 , 98 ] or no other study used the same measure (n=19) [ 37 , 39 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 56 , 58 - 61 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 75 , 85 , 90 , 92 , 97 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 65 studies, 48 (74%) were RCTs [ 35 - 37 , 39 - 50 , 52 - 57 , 59 - 65 , 72 , 73 , 76 - 82 , 85 , 89 - 91 , 93 - 99 ], and 17 (26%) were quasi-experimental [ 38 , 51 , 58 , 66 - 71 , 74 , 75 , 83 , 84 , 86 - 88 , 92 ]. More than half (n=37, 58%) of the studies were conducted in the United States [ 36 - 40 , 44 , 48 - 50 , 54 , 56 - 61 , 63 , 65 , 67 - 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 83 - 85 , 87 - 90 , 94 , 97 , 98 ], and the rest were from the Netherlands (n=9, 14%) [ 35 , 41 , 43 , 47 , 64 , 70 , 91 , 92 , 96 ], Australia (n=5, 8%) [ 45 , 66 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The average age of patients ranged from 39.9 to 72 years, and the average age of caregivers or partners ranged from 51.5 to 58.8 years. In the 33 studies that provided information about race and ethnicity, most patients (n=3495, 90%) and family members (n=259, 97%) were described as “White” or “Caucasian.” The cancer diagnoses varied across studies, with the most prevalent being breast cancer (n=24, 37%) [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 52 , 54 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 64 - 66 , 70 - 72 , 74 , 76 , 80 , 82 , 84 , 91 , 93 , 95 ], mixed cancer diagnosis (n=19, 29%) [ 36 , 40 , 45 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 57 , 62 , 69 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 81 , 83 , 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 ], and prostate cancer (n=7, 11%) [ 39 , 48 , 56 , 67 , 85 , 88 , 98 ]. The attrition rate ranged from 0% to 76%, with a median of 16.8% (mean 20.4%, SD 13.7%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 48 RCTs, 29 (60%) studies included a usual care control group [ 35 , 36 , 39 , 41 - 44 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 73 , 76 - 80 , 82 , 85 , 91 , 93 - 96 , 99 ], and 19 (40%) included an active control [ 37 , 40 , 45 , 48 - 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 59 - 61 , 63 , 72 , 81 , 89 , 90 , 97 , 98 ]. Among the 17 quasi-experimental studies, 11 (65%) did not have a control group [ 38 , 51 , 67 - 71 , 74 , 86 - 88 ], and 6 (35%) studies included a usual care control group [ 58 , 66 , 75 , 83 , 84 , 92 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang,

Flannery,

Zhang

et al. 2024

JMIR Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients’ and families’ psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families. Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members. Methods Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach. Results A total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies’ general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients’ quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI –0.01 to 0.10; I2=42.7%; P=.01). The interventions effectively reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in patients, as shown by moderate effect sizes on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores (Hedges g=–0.72, 95% CI –1.89 to 0.46; I2=97.6%; P<.001). Conclusions This study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698

show abstract

Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Zhang,

Flannery,

Zhang

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Patients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients’ and families’ psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families. OBJECTIVE A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members. METHODS Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach. RESULTS A total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies’ general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients’ quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI –0.01 to 0.10; I2=42.7%; P=.01). The interventions effectively reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in patients, as shown by moderate effect sizes on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores (Hedges g=–0.72, 95% CI –1.89 to 0.46; I2=97.6%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698

show abstract

Navigator-guided e-Psychoeducational Intervention for Prostate Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

A critical literature review of dyadic web‐based interventions to support cancer patients and their caregivers, and directions for future research

A critical literature review of dyadic web‐based interventions to support cancer patients and their caregivers, and directions for future research

Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About