Mindfulness-based Interventions Across the Cancer Continuum in the United States: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
American Journal of Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-11 DOI:10.1177/08901171241227316
Brent Emerson, Menaka Reddy, Paul L Reiter, Abigail B Shoben, Maryanna Klatt, Subhankar Chakraborty, Mira L Katz
{"title":"Mindfulness-based Interventions Across the Cancer Continuum in the United States: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Brent Emerson, Menaka Reddy, Paul L Reiter, Abigail B Shoben, Maryanna Klatt, Subhankar Chakraborty, Mira L Katz","doi":"10.1177/08901171241227316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To review mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) tested in randomized controlled trials (RCT) across the cancer continuum.</p><p><strong>Data source: </strong>Articles identified in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Embase.</p><p><strong>Study inclusion and exclusion criteria: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened articles for: (1) topic relevance; (2) RCT study design; (3) mindfulness activity; (4) text availability; (5) country (United States); and (6) mindfulness as the primary intervention component.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Twenty-eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted on the following variables: publication year, population, study arms, cancer site, stage of cancer continuum, participant demographic characteristics, mindfulness definition, mindfulness measures, mindfulness delivery, and behavioral theory.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We used descriptive statistics and preliminary content analysis to characterize the data and identify emerging themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A definition of mindfulness was reported in 46% of studies and 43% measured mindfulness. Almost all MBIs were tested in survivorship (50%) or treatment (46%) stages of the cancer continuum. Breast cancer was the focus of 73% of cancer-site specific studies, and most participants were non-Hispanic white females.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The scoping review identified 5 themes: (1) inconsistency in defining mindfulness; (2) differences in measuring mindfulness; (3) underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities; (4) underrepresentation of males and cancer sites other than breast; and (5) the lack of behavioral theory in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the MBI.</p>","PeriodicalId":7481,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241227316","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To review mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) tested in randomized controlled trials (RCT) across the cancer continuum.

Data source: Articles identified in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Embase.

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria: Two independent reviewers screened articles for: (1) topic relevance; (2) RCT study design; (3) mindfulness activity; (4) text availability; (5) country (United States); and (6) mindfulness as the primary intervention component.

Data extraction: Twenty-eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted on the following variables: publication year, population, study arms, cancer site, stage of cancer continuum, participant demographic characteristics, mindfulness definition, mindfulness measures, mindfulness delivery, and behavioral theory.

Data synthesis: We used descriptive statistics and preliminary content analysis to characterize the data and identify emerging themes.

Results: A definition of mindfulness was reported in 46% of studies and 43% measured mindfulness. Almost all MBIs were tested in survivorship (50%) or treatment (46%) stages of the cancer continuum. Breast cancer was the focus of 73% of cancer-site specific studies, and most participants were non-Hispanic white females.

Conclusion: The scoping review identified 5 themes: (1) inconsistency in defining mindfulness; (2) differences in measuring mindfulness; (3) underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minorities; (4) underrepresentation of males and cancer sites other than breast; and (5) the lack of behavioral theory in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the MBI.

美国癌症连续性中基于正念的干预措施:范围综述》。
目的回顾在整个癌症治疗过程中通过随机对照试验(RCT)测试的正念干预(MBIs):数据来源:PubMed、CINAHL、Web of Science、PsycINFO 和 Embase 中检索到的文章:两名独立审稿人对文章进行筛选,以确定(1) 主题相关性;(2) RCT 研究设计;(3) 正念活动;(4) 文本可用性;(5) 国家(美国);(6) 正念作为主要干预内容:28项研究符合纳入标准。我们提取了以下变量的数据:发表年份、人群、研究臂、癌症部位、癌症连续阶段、参与者人口特征、正念定义、正念措施、正念传递和行为理论:我们使用描述性统计和初步内容分析来描述数据特征并确定新出现的主题:46%的研究报告了正念的定义,43%的研究对正念进行了测量。几乎所有的正念疗法都是在癌症的生存期(50%)或治疗期(46%)进行测试的。乳腺癌是 73% 癌症部位特定研究的重点,大多数参与者为非西班牙裔白人女性:范围界定审查确定了 5 个主题:(1)正念定义的不一致性;(2)正念测量的差异;(3)少数种族/民族的代表性不足;(4)男性和乳腺癌以外癌症部位的代表性不足;以及(5)MBI 的设计、实施和评估缺乏行为理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Health Promotion
American Journal of Health Promotion PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The editorial goal of the American Journal of Health Promotion is to provide a forum for exchange among the many disciplines involved in health promotion and an interface between researchers and practitioners.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信