Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/111285
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBeatty, L.en
dc.contributor.authorKemp, E.en
dc.contributor.authorButow, P.en
dc.contributor.authorGirgis, A.en
dc.contributor.authorSchofield, P.en
dc.contributor.authorTurner, J.en
dc.contributor.authorHulbert-Williams, N.en
dc.contributor.authorLevesque, J.en
dc.contributor.authorKoczwara, B.en
dc.date.issued2018en
dc.identifier.citationPsycho-Oncology, 2018; 27(1):34-42en
dc.identifier.issn1057-9249en
dc.identifier.issn1099-1611en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/111285-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To summarise the evidence‐base of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer, by mode of delivery (group, individual, or low‐intensity interventions). To synthesise data regarding core intervention‐elements (eg, intervention duration) and context factors (trial setting, uptake and adherence, and demographic characteristics). Methods: Four databases were searched (inception‐May 2016): MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), and SCOPUS; reference lists were examined for additional publications. Grey literature was excluded. Outcome data were extracted for survival, distress, quality of life, coping, sleep, fatigue, and/or pain and summarised through narrative synthesis. Results: Fifteen randomised clinical trials (RCTs), reported across 23 articles, met inclusion criteria: 7 groups, 4 individuals, and 4 low‐intensity interventions. Overall, interventions improved distress (8/13 RCTs), coping (4/5 RCTs), and pain (4/5 RCTs). No evidence of survival benefit was found. For remaining outcomes, evidence was either insufficient, or too mixed to draw conclusions. Group programs had the strongest evidence‐base for efficacy; individual and low‐intensity therapy had insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Group interventions had longest intervention durations and lowest uptake and adherence; low‐intensity interventions had shortest durations and highest uptake and adherence. Disparities in uptake, adherence, and reach were evident, with the demographic profile of participants polarised to young, Caucasian, English-speaking, partnered women. Conclusions: There remains a paucity of psychological interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer. Those that exist have an inconsistent evidence‐base across the range of patient‐reported outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate accessible delivery formats that ensure efficacy as well as uptake.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityLisa Beatty, Emma Kemp, Phyllis Butow, Afaf Girgis, Penelope Schofield, Jane Turner, Nicholas J. Hulbert-Williams, Janelle V. Levesque, Bogda Koczwaraen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en
dc.subjectCancer; metastatic breast cancer; oncology; psychological interventions; systematic review; treatment modalityen
dc.titleA systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: context mattersen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0030081486en
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pon.4445en
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1042942en
dc.identifier.pubid356008-
pubs.library.collectionPsychology publicationsen
pubs.library.teamDS14en
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.orcidKemp, E. [0000-0001-5664-8031]en
Appears in Collections:Psychology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.