Group Interventions for Patients with Cancer and HIV Disease: Part I: Effects on Psychosocial and Functional Outcomes at Different Phases of Illness

Abstract

Group interventions for individuals facing cancer or HIV disease have drawn considerable attention among researchers and clinicians over the past 20 years. There is growing evidence that group services may be helpful, but which interventions are most effective for participants at which phases in the trajectory of disease has been less clear. Moreover, professionals working in different intervention settings (e.g., primary prevention vs. clinical care) and different disease sites (cancer vs. HIV disease) often have little awareness of relevant advances in other fields. Efforts to integrate findings in the literature may accelerate research and advance the standard of clinical care. The current article, the first in a series of four special reports, critically evaluates the efficacy of group interventions led by professional or trained facilitators for individuals confronted by cancer or HIV, across the spectrum of illness from elevated risk through advanced disease. We examine psychosocial and functional outcomes for different interventions directed toward different patient subgroups, trace common themes, highlight limitations, and offer recommendations for further research.

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

“…Reliability and validity of the new scale was examined. Finally, the research and practice implications of the scale are discussed.Group interventions have been proposed as perhaps the most promising psychosocial treatment modality for persons receiving care in clinical and community-based health care settings (Simonton & Sherman, 2000), and interest in and practice of group interventions is growing among researchers and practitioners (Sherman et al, 2004). For the purposes of this study, group interventions refer to the broad range of behavioral and mental health interventions that are delivered within the group environment.…”

“…These advantages include: (a) the development of a sense of universality, cohesion, and social support among group members; (b) the opportunity for modeling and social learning from other group members, and (c) the positive experience of sharing with and helping others (Burlingame, MacKenzie, & Strauss, 2003;Hyde, Appleby, Weiss, Bailey & Morgan, 2005;Yalom, 1985). Additionally, research suggests that participants often view group interventions as less stigmatizing than individual interventions (Sherman et al, 2004). Furthermore, group interventions have been shown to be effective (Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Mosier, 2003), are more cost-effective than individual-level interventions (Holtgrave & Pinkerton, 1998) and allow for fewer personnel and reduced implementation-related costs.…”

“…Furthermore, group interventions have been shown to be effective (Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Mosier, 2003), are more cost-effective than individual-level interventions (Holtgrave & Pinkerton, 1998) and allow for fewer personnel and reduced implementation-related costs. These features may make group interventions more desirable and practical for clinical and community-based prevention and treatment programs.While research has made clear the import of the group intervention as an integral part of behavioral and mental health interventions (Burlingame, MacKenzie, & Strauss, 2003;Hyde et al, 2005;Sherman et al, 2004), the social environment of the group, as well as relationships among group members and leaders (i.e., facilitators, therapists, or other personnel in charge of running and organizing the group) remain relatively undocumented in intervention research. Nonetheless, the perceived social environment of a group can exert a considerable influence on an intervention's efficacy in reaching its designated goals and may help explain variation in behavioral and mental health outcomes among individual members of groups.…”

“…While research has made clear the import of the group intervention as an integral part of behavioral and mental health interventions (Burlingame, MacKenzie, & Strauss, 2003;Hyde et al, 2005;Sherman et al, 2004), the social environment of the group, as well as relationships among group members and leaders (i.e., facilitators, therapists, or other personnel in charge of running and organizing the group) remain relatively undocumented in intervention research. Nonetheless, the perceived social environment of a group can exert a considerable influence on an intervention's efficacy in reaching its designated goals and may help explain variation in behavioral and mental health outcomes among individual members of groups.…”

When is the best time for psychotherapeutic intervention following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation?

“…social support, depression, treatment or workrelated distress [46,48]. Psychosocial outcomes such as problematic social support [18], impaired HRQoL [39,44,46], pre-existing or developing psychiatric comorbidity [9] can be helpfully addressed by tailored psychotherapeutic interventions [6,23,48].…”