Effects of interventions for enhancing resilience in cancer patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

IF 13.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102381

Xiaotong Ding , Fang Zhao , Qing Wang , Mingyue Zhu , Houming Kan , Enfeng Fu , Shuaifang Wei , Zheng Li

{"title":"Effects of interventions for enhancing resilience in cancer patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis","authors":"Xiaotong Ding , Fang Zhao , Qing Wang , Mingyue Zhu , Houming Kan , Enfeng Fu , Shuaifang Wei , Zheng Li","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Various interventions appear to enhance cancer patients' resilience. However, the best intervention options are still unknown. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of different interventions on resilience and identify the most effective interventions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Nine major English and Chinese databases were systematically retrieved for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to 13 November 2023. The outcome was resilience. The analysis was conducted using Software Review Manager 5.4, R 4.2.3, and STATA 14.0.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The network meta-analysis included 32 RCTs and evaluated 12 interventions. Regarding effectiveness, compared to routine care, the relative effect sizes of attention and interpretation therapy, cyclic adjustment training, cognitive intervention, expressive therapy, positive psychological intervention, social support intervention, and work-environment therapy had statistically significant enhancing resilience, with the SMD (95%CI) of 1.42 (0.75, 2.07), 1.97 (0.76, 3.18), 1.26 (0.76, 1.77), 0.93 (0.08, 1.78), 1.02 (0.55, 1.50), 1.01 (0.48, 1.56), 1.65 (0.94, 2.37), respectively. Considering the rank probability, statistical power, and efficacy, the most effective interventions for improving resilience were attention and interpretation therapy, cognitive intervention, and positive psychological intervention. With the limited quantity of RCTs, the effectiveness of cyclic adjustment training and work-environment therapy still needs to be explored.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Attention and interpretation therapy was the first best choice for boosting resilience out of the 12 interventions. Cognitive intervention and positive psychological intervention were also better choices for improving cancer patients' resilience. Due to the low quality and quantity of included RCTs, the need for multi-center, higher-quality trials with larger samples should be carried out.</p><p>PROSPERO ID: CRD42023434223. The study did not receive funding support.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 102381"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Various interventions appear to enhance cancer patients' resilience. However, the best intervention options are still unknown. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of different interventions on resilience and identify the most effective interventions.

Methods

Nine major English and Chinese databases were systematically retrieved for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to 13 November 2023. The outcome was resilience. The analysis was conducted using Software Review Manager 5.4, R 4.2.3, and STATA 14.0.

Results

The network meta-analysis included 32 RCTs and evaluated 12 interventions. Regarding effectiveness, compared to routine care, the relative effect sizes of attention and interpretation therapy, cyclic adjustment training, cognitive intervention, expressive therapy, positive psychological intervention, social support intervention, and work-environment therapy had statistically significant enhancing resilience, with the SMD (95%CI) of 1.42 (0.75, 2.07), 1.97 (0.76, 3.18), 1.26 (0.76, 1.77), 0.93 (0.08, 1.78), 1.02 (0.55, 1.50), 1.01 (0.48, 1.56), 1.65 (0.94, 2.37), respectively. Considering the rank probability, statistical power, and efficacy, the most effective interventions for improving resilience were attention and interpretation therapy, cognitive intervention, and positive psychological intervention. With the limited quantity of RCTs, the effectiveness of cyclic adjustment training and work-environment therapy still needs to be explored.

Conclusions

Attention and interpretation therapy was the first best choice for boosting resilience out of the 12 interventions. Cognitive intervention and positive psychological intervention were also better choices for improving cancer patients' resilience. Due to the low quality and quantity of included RCTs, the need for multi-center, higher-quality trials with larger samples should be carried out.

PROSPERO ID: CRD42023434223. The study did not receive funding support.

查看原文本刊更多论文

提高癌症患者复原力的干预措施的效果：系统回顾和网络荟萃分析

背景各种干预措施似乎都能增强癌症患者的复原力。然而，最佳干预方案仍是未知数。本系统综述和网络荟萃分析旨在研究不同干预措施对抗逆力的影响，并找出最有效的干预措施。方法系统检索了九个主要的中英文数据库中从开始到2023年11月13日发表的随机对照试验（RCT）。试验结果为抗逆力。结果网络荟萃分析纳入了 32 项随机对照试验，评估了 12 项干预措施。在有效性方面，与常规护理相比，注意力和解释疗法、周期性适应训练、认知干预、表达性疗法、积极心理干预、社会支持干预和工作环境疗法的相对效应大小在统计学上显著增强了复原力，其SMD（95%CI）为1.42（0.75，2.07）、1.97（0.76，3.18）、1.26（0.76，1.77）、0.93（0.08，1.78）、1.02（0.55，1.50）、1.01（0.48，1.56）、1.65（0.94，2.37）。考虑到排序概率、统计功率和疗效，对提高抗逆力最有效的干预措施是注意力和解释疗法、认知干预和积极心理干预。由于 RCT 数量有限，循环适应训练和工作环境疗法的有效性仍有待探讨。认知干预和积极心理干预也是提高癌症患者复原力的较好选择。由于纳入的研究性临床试验的质量和数量都不高，因此需要进行多中心、更高质量和更大样本的试验：CRD42023434223。该研究未获得资金支持。

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

Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

23.10

自引率

1.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.