The new proposed definition of FCR reflects the broad spectrum in which patients experience FCR. A consensual definition of FCR and the identification of the essential characteristics of clinical FCR are necessary to accurately and consistently measure FCR severity and to develop effective interventions to treat FCR. We hope this broad definition can encourage further research and the development of inclusive policies for all cancer patients and survivors who are struggling with this issue.
PURPOSE Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significantly distressing problem that affects a substantial number of patients with and survivors of cancer; however, the overall efficacy of available psychological interventions on FCR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated this in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated the effect of psychological interventions on FCR among patients with and survivors of cancer. Controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis, and the moderating influence of study characteristics on the effect were examined. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system. Open trials were narratively reviewed to explore ongoing developments in the field (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42017076514). RESULTS A total of 23 controlled trials (21 randomized controlled trials) and nine open trials were included. Small effects (Hedges’s g) were found both at postintervention ( g = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46; P < .001) and at follow-up ( g = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.40; P < .001). Effects at postintervention of contemporary cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs; g = 0.42) were larger than those of traditional CBTs ( g = 0.24; β = .22; 95% CI, .04 to .41; P = .018). At follow-up, larger effects were associated with shorter time to follow-up (β = −.01; 95% CI, −.01 to −.00; P = .027) and group-based formats (β = .18; 95% CI, .01 to .36; P = .041). A GRADE evaluation indicated evidence of moderate strength for effects of psychological intervention for FCR. CONCLUSION Psychological interventions for FCR revealed a small but robust effect at postintervention, which was largely maintained at follow-up. Larger postintervention effects were found for contemporary CBTs that were focused on processes of cognition—for example, worry, rumination, and attentional bias—rather than the content, and aimed to change the way in which the individual relates to his or her inner experiences. Future trials could investigate how to further optimize and tailor interventions to individual patients’ FCR presentation.
The relationship between FCR and health care use has been understudied. Results indicate that patients with elevated FCR may indeed use more health care services. We recommend that clinicians monitor health care use in patients who are struggling with FCR.
The purpose of the present review is to examine stigma and its consequences among people with cancer, with an emphasis on the situation in which one's behavior may have contributed to the disease. We examine whether voluntarily engaging in behavior that adds to cancer risk leads to increased stigma after cancer onset, as compared with when one's behavior is not considered (by the affected individual or by others) to have contributed to the onset of cancer. We conducted literature searches in PsychInfo and Medline and identified 38 published papers that empirically addressed cancer-related stigma. We found evidence of increased negative attitudes and more severe consequences of stigma among people that have engaged in a behavior that is perceived to have contributed to their cancer, compared with those who are not perceived to have contributed to their disease.
These results are conceptually consistent with both the Health Belief Model and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of health promotion and are useful in informing HCPs on how to better promote SB.
Younger age was associated with more FCR among breast cancer patients, regardless of motherhood status. Our findings suggest new, potentially valuable ways of managing FCR by helping affected people to reduce anxiety and illness intrusiveness.
Objective
Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI‐SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics.
Methods
This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI‐SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool.
Results
IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI‐SF (range 0–36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis.
Conclusions
FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR.
The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).
Stigma exerts a powerful, deleterious psychosocial impact in lung and head and neck cancers, but is less common than believed. Patients should be encouraged to remain involved in valued activities and roles and to use benefit finding to limit its negative effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.