Mindfulness-based psychosocial interventions and psychological wellbeing in cancer survivorship: a meta-analysis.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2024.2336014
Rachel Telles, Brendan M Whitney, Sarah Froelich, Susan K Lutgendorf
{"title":"Mindfulness-based psychosocial interventions and psychological wellbeing in cancer survivorship: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Rachel Telles, Brendan M Whitney, Sarah Froelich, Susan K Lutgendorf","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2336014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Among cancer survivors, mindfulness-based interventions appear promising in decreasing distress for cancer patients, but little attention has been paid to the ultimate mindfulness goal of increasing psychological wellbeing. This meta-analysis aims to summarise and synthesise available evidence concerning the effectiveness of MBIs on positive psychological outcomes reflecting key aspects of psychological wellbeing in heterogeneous cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search of mindfulness-based randomised clinical trials in cancer survivors was conducted across six electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted using R; standardised mean difference (SMD) was used to determine intervention effect. Moderators examined included therapeutic orientation, control group type, treatment modality, treatment target, heterogeneous vs. homogeneous cancer type, and facet of wellbeing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one studies were included (<i>N</i> = 2651). Those who received mindfulness-based interventions reported significantly higher eudaimonic, hedonic, and social wellbeing than respondents in control groups (SMD = 0.599). Interventions were equally effective across therapeutic orientation, control group type, treatment modality and treatment target. There were trend level differences favouring homogeneous cancer diagnosis groups over heterogeneous diagnosis groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MBIs provide an effective treatment for increasing psychological wellbeing in cancer survivors. This finding has important implications for clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2336014","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

Purpose: Among cancer survivors, mindfulness-based interventions appear promising in decreasing distress for cancer patients, but little attention has been paid to the ultimate mindfulness goal of increasing psychological wellbeing. This meta-analysis aims to summarise and synthesise available evidence concerning the effectiveness of MBIs on positive psychological outcomes reflecting key aspects of psychological wellbeing in heterogeneous cancer patients.

Methods: A literature search of mindfulness-based randomised clinical trials in cancer survivors was conducted across six electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Meta-analyses were conducted using R; standardised mean difference (SMD) was used to determine intervention effect. Moderators examined included therapeutic orientation, control group type, treatment modality, treatment target, heterogeneous vs. homogeneous cancer type, and facet of wellbeing.

Results: Thirty-one studies were included (N = 2651). Those who received mindfulness-based interventions reported significantly higher eudaimonic, hedonic, and social wellbeing than respondents in control groups (SMD = 0.599). Interventions were equally effective across therapeutic orientation, control group type, treatment modality and treatment target. There were trend level differences favouring homogeneous cancer diagnosis groups over heterogeneous diagnosis groups.

Conclusion: MBIs provide an effective treatment for increasing psychological wellbeing in cancer survivors. This finding has important implications for clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以正念为基础的心理干预和癌症幸存者的心理健康:一项荟萃分析。
目的:在癌症幸存者中,以正念为基础的干预措施在减少癌症患者的痛苦方面似乎很有前景,但很少有人关注正念的最终目标--提高心理健康水平。本荟萃分析旨在总结和归纳有关正念干预对积极心理结果的有效性的现有证据,这些积极心理结果反映了不同癌症患者心理健康的关键方面:在六个电子数据库中对癌症幸存者中基于正念的随机临床试验进行了文献检索。两名审稿人独立筛选研究并提取数据。使用R进行元分析;使用标准化平均差(SMD)确定干预效果。研究的调节因素包括治疗方向、对照组类型、治疗方式、治疗目标、异质癌症类型与同质癌症类型,以及幸福感的方方面面:结果:共纳入 31 项研究(N = 2651)。与对照组受访者相比,接受正念干预的受访者报告的幸福感、享乐感和社会幸福感明显更高(SMD = 0.599)。不同治疗方向、对照组类型、治疗方式和治疗目标的干预效果相同。同质癌症诊断组优于异质诊断组的趋势水平存在差异:MBIs是提高癌症幸存者心理健康的有效治疗方法。这一发现对临床实践具有重要意义。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Protection motivation theory and health behaviour: conceptual review, discussion of limitations, and recommendations for best practice and future research. Inhibitory control training to reduce appetitive behaviour: a meta-analytic investigation of effectiveness, potential moderators, and underlying mechanisms of change. Psychosocial determinants of alternative protein choices: a meta-review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1