A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Couple-Based Dyadic Intervention on the Psychological Distress of Cancer Patients and Their Partners.
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Couple-Based Dyadic Intervention on the Psychological Distress of Cancer Patients and Their Partners.","authors":"Qian Sun, Peirong Xu, Lijun Li, Zhong Wang, Yonghe Chen, Cong Wen, Zhengcong Wu, Junsheng Peng","doi":"10.1111/jocn.17677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims and objective: </strong>To explore the effectiveness of dyadic intervention on the psychological distress of cancer patients and their partners.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer patients and their partners demonstrated high levels of psychological distress. However, the effects of dyadic intervention on psychological distress were unclear.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search on couple-based dyadic intervention for cancer patients and their partners was carried out across eight databases. Our review adhered to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool as its foundational framework, and data extraction and analysis followed standardised checklists for quantitative research studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant effects were reported on patients' anxiety, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related distress. However, subgroup analysis revealed that interventions lasting 6 or 12 weeks had positive effects on patients' cancer-related distress. Significant reductions in cancer-related distress scores were only observed when interventions included communication and support (CS) and skill building (SB) components, however. Additionally, patients experienced higher distress levels with less than six interventions or session durations shorter than 6 h. For partners, couple-based dyadic interventions significantly reduced their anxiety and depressive symptom levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Couple-based dyadic interventions, with either 6- or 12-week durations, or encompassing both CS and SB components, demonstrated significantly positive effectiveness on patients' psychological distress. Couple-based dyadic interventions also exhibited a propensity for alleviating psychological distress in both cancer patients and their partners, with a more pronounced impact observed among partners.</p><p><strong>Relevance to clinical practice: </strong>This meta-analysis highlights the effectiveness of dyadic interventions in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients and their partners. Healthcare professionals should incorporate these interventions into their care practices.</p><p><strong>No patient or public contribution: </strong>Direct contributions from patients or the public were not included in this review.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO number: CRD42023418978; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=418978.</p>","PeriodicalId":50236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17677","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims and objective: To explore the effectiveness of dyadic intervention on the psychological distress of cancer patients and their partners.
Background: Cancer patients and their partners demonstrated high levels of psychological distress. However, the effects of dyadic intervention on psychological distress were unclear.
Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement.
Methods: A systematic search on couple-based dyadic intervention for cancer patients and their partners was carried out across eight databases. Our review adhered to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool as its foundational framework, and data extraction and analysis followed standardised checklists for quantitative research studies.
Results: No statistically significant effects were reported on patients' anxiety, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related distress. However, subgroup analysis revealed that interventions lasting 6 or 12 weeks had positive effects on patients' cancer-related distress. Significant reductions in cancer-related distress scores were only observed when interventions included communication and support (CS) and skill building (SB) components, however. Additionally, patients experienced higher distress levels with less than six interventions or session durations shorter than 6 h. For partners, couple-based dyadic interventions significantly reduced their anxiety and depressive symptom levels.
Conclusions: Couple-based dyadic interventions, with either 6- or 12-week durations, or encompassing both CS and SB components, demonstrated significantly positive effectiveness on patients' psychological distress. Couple-based dyadic interventions also exhibited a propensity for alleviating psychological distress in both cancer patients and their partners, with a more pronounced impact observed among partners.
Relevance to clinical practice: This meta-analysis highlights the effectiveness of dyadic interventions in reducing psychological distress in cancer patients and their partners. Healthcare professionals should incorporate these interventions into their care practices.
No patient or public contribution: Direct contributions from patients or the public were not included in this review.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Clinical Nursing (JCN) is an international, peer reviewed, scientific journal that seeks to promote the development and exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to all spheres of nursing practice. The primary aim is to promote a high standard of clinically related scholarship which advances and supports the practice and discipline of nursing. The Journal also aims to promote the international exchange of ideas and experience that draws from the different cultures in which practice takes place. Further, JCN seeks to enrich insight into clinical need and the implications for nursing intervention and models of service delivery. Emphasis is placed on promoting critical debate on the art and science of nursing practice.
JCN is essential reading for anyone involved in nursing practice, whether clinicians, researchers, educators, managers, policy makers, or students. The development of clinical practice and the changing patterns of inter-professional working are also central to JCN''s scope of interest. Contributions are welcomed from other health professionals on issues that have a direct impact on nursing practice.
We publish high quality papers from across the methodological spectrum that make an important and novel contribution to the field of clinical nursing (regardless of where care is provided), and which demonstrate clinical application and international relevance.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
