No abstract

ObjectiveThis individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of psychosocial interventions (PSI) on quality of life (QoL), emotional function (EF), and social function (SF) in patients with cancer, and to study moderator effects of demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention‐related characteristics.MethodsRelevant studies were identified via literature searches in 4 databases. We pooled IPD from 22 (n = 4217) of 61 eligible randomized controlled trials. Linear mixed‐effect model analyses were used to study intervention effects on the post‐intervention values of QoL, EF, and SF (z‐scores), adjusting for baseline values, age, and cancer type. We studied moderator effects by testing interactions with the intervention for demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention‐related characteristics, and conducted subsequent stratified analyses for significant moderator variables.Results: PSI significantly improved QoL (β = 0.14,95%CI = 0.06;0.21), EF (β = 0.13,95%CI = 0.05;0.20), and SF (β = 0.10,95%CI = 0.03;0.18). Significant differences in effects of different types of PSI were found, with largest effects of psychotherapy. The effects of coping skills training were moderated by age, treatment type, and targeted interventions. Effects of psychotherapy on EF may be moderated by cancer type, but these analyses were based on 2 randomized controlled trials with small sample sizes of some cancer types.ConclusionsPSI significantly improved QoL, EF, and SF, with small overall effects. However, the effects differed by several demographic, clinical, personal, and intervention‐related characteristics. Our study highlights the beneficial effects of coping skills training in patients treated with chemotherapy, the importance of targeted interventions, and the need of developing interventions tailored to the specific needs of elderly patients.

No abstract

The cost-utility analysis revealed that, during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer, the individual psychosocial support interventions provided here was cost effective because the health care costs were lower and QALYs were higher compared to SC alone.

In a prospective, randomized study, an individual psychosocial support intervention performed by specially trained oncology nurses, or psychologists, were compared with standard care. Consecutive primary breast cancer patients about to start adjuvant therapy (n = 179) were included. Data were supplied by the questionnaires European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Study Group Core Quality of life questionnaire with 30 questions (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Breast Cancer Module with 23 questions (BR23), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the Impact of Event Scale before randomization and 1, 3, and 6 months later. Patient files provided data on utilization of psychosocial support offered in routine care. Global quality of life/health status, nausea and vomiting, and systemic therapy side effects were the subscales showing significant Group by Time interactions, favoring the interventions. Intervention groups improved statistically significantly more than the standard care group regarding insomnia, dyspnea, and financial difficulties. Nurse patients experienced less intrusion compared with the standard care group. All groups showed statistically and clinically significant improvements with time on several subscales. The intervention groups, however, improved to a greater extent. Fewer patients in the intervention groups used psychosocial hospital support compared with the standard care group. In conclusion, psychosocial support by specially trained nurses using techniques derived from cognitive behavioral therapy is beneficial for breast cancer patients and may be a realistic alternative in routine cancer care.