Brona Nic Giolla Easpaig, Bronwyn Newman, Judith Johnson, Rebekah Laidsaar-Powell, Ursula M Sansom-Daly, Lucy Jones, Lukas Hofstätter, Eden G Robertson, Stephen Mears, Kabir Sattarshetty, Rachel E Houweling, Rhiannon Edge, Joanne Cummings, Reema Harrison
{"title":"我们可以从癌症患者照护者的社会心理支持证据中学到什么？我们如何推进我们的努力？一项荟萃综述研究。","authors":"Brona Nic Giolla Easpaig, Bronwyn Newman, Judith Johnson, Rebekah Laidsaar-Powell, Ursula M Sansom-Daly, Lucy Jones, Lukas Hofstätter, Eden G Robertson, Stephen Mears, Kabir Sattarshetty, Rachel E Houweling, Rhiannon Edge, Joanne Cummings, Reema Harrison","doi":"10.1007/s11764-025-01802-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Literature concerning programmes to support the well-being of carers of cancer survivors is vast, complex, and difficult to navigate, posing difficulties for identifying and translating relevant evidence. This study will advance the field by mapping and synthesising reviews to address the question: \"What psychosocial interventions are available to promote the well-being of carers for people diagnosed with cancer, as reported in the evidence from reviews?\".</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meta-review was conducted of reviews published between 2013 and 2024. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases and relevant reference lists were searched for eligible reviews. Records were screened and assessed in accordance with the method with data from included reviews extracted and synthesised. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guided reporting. Reviews were appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ultimately, 54 reviews met the inclusion criteria. This evidence was mapped regarding populations, interventions, and outcomes, including depression, anxiety, quality of life, and distress. On average, reviews addressed nine of 11 quality checklist items. Insights were gained concerning the role of theory, carer populations, and intervention characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Key features of the body of evidence were identified that can hinder progress and which point to ways forward. It is concluded that a recalibrated carer research agenda is needed, one that is designed to synthesise evidence concerning what works, for which carers to achieve what outcomes, or to address which kinds of psychosocial support needs.</p><p><strong>Implications for cancer survivors: </strong>Despite the need to ensure that carers have access to programs that support their wellbeing as they care for their loved ones, the evidence to guide program development is complex and difficult to navigate. A refocusing of research efforts is needed to advance understanding of what is most effective for carers, and how this can be translated into clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":15284,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Survivorship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What can we learn from the evidence of psychosocial support for carers of people with cancer and how do we advance our efforts? A meta-review study.\",\"authors\":\"Brona Nic Giolla Easpaig, Bronwyn Newman, Judith Johnson, Rebekah Laidsaar-Powell, Ursula M Sansom-Daly, Lucy Jones, Lukas Hofstätter, Eden G Robertson, Stephen Mears, Kabir Sattarshetty, Rachel E Houweling, Rhiannon Edge, Joanne Cummings, Reema Harrison\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11764-025-01802-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Literature concerning programmes to support the well-being of carers of cancer survivors is vast, complex, and difficult to navigate, posing difficulties for identifying and translating relevant evidence. This study will advance the field by mapping and synthesising reviews to address the question: \\\"What psychosocial interventions are available to promote the well-being of carers for people diagnosed with cancer, as reported in the evidence from reviews?\\\".</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meta-review was conducted of reviews published between 2013 and 2024. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases and relevant reference lists were searched for eligible reviews. Records were screened and assessed in accordance with the method with data from included reviews extracted and synthesised. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guided reporting. Reviews were appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ultimately, 54 reviews met the inclusion criteria. This evidence was mapped regarding populations, interventions, and outcomes, including depression, anxiety, quality of life, and distress. On average, reviews addressed nine of 11 quality checklist items. Insights were gained concerning the role of theory, carer populations, and intervention characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Key features of the body of evidence were identified that can hinder progress and which point to ways forward. It is concluded that a recalibrated carer research agenda is needed, one that is designed to synthesise evidence concerning what works, for which carers to achieve what outcomes, or to address which kinds of psychosocial support needs.</p><p><strong>Implications for cancer survivors: </strong>Despite the need to ensure that carers have access to programs that support their wellbeing as they care for their loved ones, the evidence to guide program development is complex and difficult to navigate. A refocusing of research efforts is needed to advance understanding of what is most effective for carers, and how this can be translated into clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Survivorship\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Survivorship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-025-01802-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Survivorship","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-025-01802-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
What can we learn from the evidence of psychosocial support for carers of people with cancer and how do we advance our efforts? A meta-review study.
Purpose: Literature concerning programmes to support the well-being of carers of cancer survivors is vast, complex, and difficult to navigate, posing difficulties for identifying and translating relevant evidence. This study will advance the field by mapping and synthesising reviews to address the question: "What psychosocial interventions are available to promote the well-being of carers for people diagnosed with cancer, as reported in the evidence from reviews?".
Methods: A meta-review was conducted of reviews published between 2013 and 2024. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases and relevant reference lists were searched for eligible reviews. Records were screened and assessed in accordance with the method with data from included reviews extracted and synthesised. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guided reporting. Reviews were appraised using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses.
Results: Ultimately, 54 reviews met the inclusion criteria. This evidence was mapped regarding populations, interventions, and outcomes, including depression, anxiety, quality of life, and distress. On average, reviews addressed nine of 11 quality checklist items. Insights were gained concerning the role of theory, carer populations, and intervention characteristics.
Conclusion: Key features of the body of evidence were identified that can hinder progress and which point to ways forward. It is concluded that a recalibrated carer research agenda is needed, one that is designed to synthesise evidence concerning what works, for which carers to achieve what outcomes, or to address which kinds of psychosocial support needs.
Implications for cancer survivors: Despite the need to ensure that carers have access to programs that support their wellbeing as they care for their loved ones, the evidence to guide program development is complex and difficult to navigate. A refocusing of research efforts is needed to advance understanding of what is most effective for carers, and how this can be translated into clinical practice.
期刊介绍：
Cancer survivorship is a worldwide concern. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to provide a global forum for new knowledge related to cancer survivorship. The journal publishes peer-reviewed papers relevant to improving the understanding, prevention, and management of the multiple areas related to cancer survivorship that can affect quality of care, access to care, longevity, and quality of life. It is a forum for research on humans (both laboratory and clinical), clinical studies, systematic and meta-analytic literature reviews, policy studies, and in rare situations case studies as long as they provide a new observation that should be followed up on to improve outcomes related to cancer survivors. Published articles represent a broad range of fields including oncology, primary care, physical medicine and rehabilitation, many other medical and nursing specialties, nursing, health services research, physical and occupational therapy, public health, behavioral medicine, psychology, social work, evidence-based policy, health economics, biobehavioral mechanisms, and qualitative analyses. The journal focuses exclusively on adult cancer survivors, young adult cancer survivors, and childhood cancer survivors who are young adults. Submissions must target those diagnosed with and treated for cancer.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
