Evidence Hub

Prevalence and associated factors of psychological distress among patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wen-zhen Tang, E. Mangantig, Yulita Hanum P. Iskandar, Shi-Li Cheng, Azlina Yusuf, Kui Jia

BMJ Open, 2024

25 participants · 58 citations

Abstract

Objective This paper aims to evaluate the literature on the prevalence of psychological distress and its associated factors in patients with breast cancer. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang were searched from inception to 11 June 2024. Eligibility criteria Studies reported data on the prevalence and correlates of psychological distress were included. Review, letter, conference abstracts and articles not available in English and Chinese were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction and bias risk assessment. Meta-analysis was employed to estimate the prevalence and correlates of psychological distress in patients with breast cancer. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by using the R V.4.1.1 software. Results In total, 34 studies representing 13 828 patients with breast cancer were included in the study. Most of the studies were cross-sectional study (n=25, 73.53%%). The pooled prevalence of psychological distress was 50% (95% CI 42% to 58%, I2=98%). Results showed that psychological distress was positively correlated with younger age (z=0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20), having children (z=0.39, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.61), poor financial situation (z=0.12, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.26), short…

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: 25 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free