School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
School of Psychology, University of Derby, Derby, DE22 1GB, UK.
Support Care Cancer. 2023 Dec 29;32(1):70. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08255-8.
This review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of expressive writing (EW) on health outcomes of patients with cancer.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched from 1986 to 9 July 2022. The searches were updated on 3 October 2023. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I tool for non-RCTs Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis of outcomes was performed where meta-analysis was not appropriate.
Thirty-four studies with 4316 participants were identified, including 31 RCTs and three non-RCTs. Twenty-one studies focused on women with breast cancer; the remainder recruited people with various cancer types. There was a significant improvement in fatigue (SMD = - 0.3, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.66, P = .002), passive mood (MD = - 3.26, 95% CI = - 5.83 to - 0.69, P = 0.001), and the physical dimension of quality of life (MD = 3.21, 95% CI 0.18 to 6.25, P = 0.04) but not for anxiety, depression, and global quality of life among patients who participated in EW when compared with control groups.
Findings showed some benefits of EW for people with cancer, but not necessarily in anxiety or depression. Heterogeneity in the delivery of interventions and their content, and shortcomings in the methodologies used highlight the need for stronger evidence in the field through high-quality trials and consistencies in the protocol, focusing on outcomes that this review highlighted as potential outcome targets.
本综述旨在综合现有证据,评估表达性写作(EW)对癌症患者健康结果的影响。
根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统综述和荟萃分析。从 1986 年至 2022 年 7 月 9 日,在六个数据库中进行了检索。2023 年 10 月 3 日更新了检索。使用 Cochrane 随机对照试验(RCT)偏倚风险工具和非 RCT 的 ROBINS-I 工具评估方法学质量。对于不适合进行荟萃分析的结果,进行了叙述性综合。
共确定了 34 项研究,涉及 4316 名参与者,包括 31 项 RCT 和 3 项非 RCT。21 项研究的重点是乳腺癌女性;其余研究招募了各种癌症类型的患者。EW 组在疲劳(SMD = -0.3,95%CI = -0.55 至 -0.66,P = 0.002)、被动情绪(MD = -3.26,95%CI = -5.83 至 -0.69,P = 0.001)和生活质量的身体维度(MD = 3.21,95%CI = 0.18 至 6.25,P = 0.04)方面有显著改善,但在焦虑、抑郁和整体生活质量方面与对照组相比无显著改善。
研究结果表明,EW 对癌症患者有一定益处,但不一定对焦虑或抑郁有益。干预措施的实施和内容存在异质性,以及所使用方法学的缺陷,突出表明需要通过高质量试验和关注本综述强调的潜在结果目标的一致性,为该领域提供更强有力的证据。