Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center, Winston Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
J Cancer Surviv. 2019 Dec;13(6):943-955. doi: 10.1007/s11764-019-00811-8. Epub 2019 Nov 19.
Positive affect has demonstrated unique benefits in the context of health-related stress and is emerging as an important target for psychosocial interventions. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to determine whether psychosocial interventions increase positive affect in cancer survivors.
We coded 28 randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions assessing 2082 cancer survivors from six electronic databases. We calculated 76 effect sizes for positive affect and conducted synthesis using random effects models with robust variance estimation. Tests for moderation included demographic, clinical, and intervention characteristics.
Interventions had a modest effect on positive affect (g = 0.35, 95% CI [0.16, 0.54]) with substantial heterogeneity of effects across studies ([Formula: see text]; I = 78%). Three significant moderators were identified: in-person interventions outperformed remote interventions (P = .046), effects were larger when evaluated against standard of care or wait list control conditions versus attentional, educational, or component controls (P = .009), and trials with survivors of early-stage cancer diagnoses yielded larger effects than those with advanced-stage diagnoses (P = .046). We did not detect differential benefits of psychosocial interventions across samples varying in sex, age, on-treatment versus off-treatment status, or cancer type. Although no conclusive evidence suggested outcome reporting biases (P = .370), effects were smaller in studies with lower risk of bias.
In-person interventions with survivors of early-stage cancers hold promise for enhancing positive affect, but more methodological rigor is needed.
Positive affect strategies can be an explicit target in evidence-based medicine and have a role in patient-centered survivorship care, providing tools to uniquely mobilize human strengths.
积极情绪在与健康相关的压力方面表现出独特的益处,并且正在成为心理社会干预的重要目标。本研究的主要目的是确定心理社会干预是否会增加癌症幸存者的积极情绪。
我们对 6 个电子数据库中的 28 项心理社会干预随机对照试验进行了编码,共评估了 2082 名癌症幸存者。我们计算了 76 个积极情绪的效应量,并使用具有稳健方差估计的随机效应模型进行了综合分析。对调节因素的检验包括人口统计学、临床和干预特征。
干预措施对积极情绪有适度影响(g=0.35,95%置信区间[0.16,0.54]),但研究之间的效果存在很大的异质性([Formula: see text];I=78%)。确定了三个显著的调节因素:面对面干预优于远程干预(P=0.046),与标准护理或等待对照条件相比,与注意力、教育或组成控制相比,效果更大(P=0.009),早期诊断的癌症幸存者的试验比晚期诊断的癌症幸存者的试验产生更大的效果(P=0.046)。我们没有发现心理社会干预在性别、年龄、治疗中和治疗后状态或癌症类型不同的样本中具有不同的益处。尽管没有确凿的证据表明结果报告存在偏倚(P=0.370),但低偏倚风险的研究中效果较小。
针对早期癌症幸存者的面对面干预可能有望增强积极情绪,但需要更严格的方法学。
积极情绪策略可以成为循证医学中的明确目标,并在以患者为中心的生存护理中发挥作用,为独特地调动人类力量提供工具。