Meta-analysis of the effects of psychosocial interventions on survival time in cancer patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a quantitative summary of effects of psychosocial interventions on cancer survival, and to present an overview of methodological and reporting aspects of the studies.
METHOD: Electronic searches and manual searches of reference lists from review articles and retrieved papers. Two coders independently coded study, participant, treatment, and outcome characteristics of the studies meeting selection criteria.
RESULTS: Thirteen journal articles published between 1989 and 2003 reporting results from 14 controlled intervention studies were included. Results are based on data obtained from 2626 subjects. Effect sizes [hazard ratios (HR)] were heterogeneous and random effects models were used in the analyses. The total mean inverse-variance-weighted HR was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.65-1.11). Randomized studies (n=8) showed no overall treatment effect (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.06), neither did the nonrandomized studies (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.61-1.62). Interventions using individual treatment (n=3) were, however, found to be effective (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.43-0.70) but interventions using group treatment (n=9) were ineffective (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.27). Group treatments of breast cancer (n=6) were ineffective (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.69-1.31).
CONCLUSION: A definite conclusion about whether psychosocial interventions prolong cancer survival seems premature. Future studies should use randomization to avoid self-selection of patients with poor prognosis. Interventions should…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,626 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Regulation of nucleolus assembly by non-coding RNA polymerase II transcripts
- For a Healthy Histone Code, a Little SUMO in the Tail Keeps the Acetyl Away
- Discovering a binary CTCF code with a little help from BORIS
- Article Commentary: Stabilizing the Code–-Methods to Preserve RNA Prove Their Worth
- Foreword to the Special Issue for the RINTC (The Implicit Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures) Project
- Commentary: Promoting Health and Well-being in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: Using Health and Behavior Codes at Routine Well-child Visits
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.