Dyadic interventions for cancer patient-caregiver dyads: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 NURSING International Journal of Nursing Studies Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104948
Xiaoxu Wang, Lili Zang, Xueyuan Hui, Xiaoxuan Meng, Shuo Qiao, Liping Fan, Qinghui Meng
{"title":"Dyadic interventions for cancer patient-caregiver dyads: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Xiaoxu Wang, Lili Zang, Xueyuan Hui, Xiaoxuan Meng, Shuo Qiao, Liping Fan, Qinghui Meng","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer imposes significant psychological distress on both patients and caregivers. Dyadic interventions are designed to concurrently address the health problems of both, yet there remains limited evidence as to which specific dyadic interventions yield the most effective outcomes for both partners.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically synthesize and evaluate the comparative efficacy of various dyadic interventions on a wide range of outcomes within cancer patient-caregiver dyads.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches of eight electronic databases from inception to July 2, 2023, were performed. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers utilizing the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Jadad score. Stata 17.0 was used for network meta-analysis, with the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) curve employed to rank interventions based on efficacy for each outcome. Effect sizes were reported using standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), and publication bias was assessed via Egger's test. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO under CRD42023467172.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>A total of 37 studies, spanning 8 countries, were included. According to SUCRA rankings, WeChat couple-based psychosocial support and the eHealth symptom and complication management program were identified as the most effective interventions for improving quality of life in both patients and caregivers (SUCRA = 82.1 %, SMD = 7.30, 95 % CI: 1.02, 13.58; SUCRA = 86.6 %, SMD =1.17, 95 % CI: 0.04, 2.31, respectively). Emotionally focused therapy was ranked as the most effective intervention for enhancing dyadic adjustment (SUCRA = 100 %, SMD = 1.63, 95 % CI: 0.91, 2.36; SUCRA = 99.9 %, SMD = 2.04, 95 % CI: 1.26, 2.82, respectively). Couple-based intimacy enhancement and telephone-based dyadic psychosocial interventions were deemed most effective interventions in alleviating anxiety (SUCRA = 88.2 %, SMD = -0.83, 95 % CI: -1.65, -0.00; SUCRA = 95.6 %, SMD = -1.08, 95 % CI: -1.76, -0.41, respectively), while telephone-based dyadic psychosocial intervention and coping skills training were the most efficacious interventions for reducing depression in both partners (SUCRA = 95.2 %, SMD = -0.89, 95 % CI: -1.55, -0.23; SUCRA = 99.8 %, SMD = -2.31, 95 % CI: -3.27, -1.35, respectively). Additionally, caregiver educational program was ranked highest for reducing caregivers burden (SUCRA = 95.6 %, SMD = -1.20, 95 % CI: -1.55, -0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The highest-ranked dyadic interventions identified in this analysis offer valuable insights for clinical practice, providing strategies to enhance the quality of life, strengthen dyadic relationships, and alleviate anxiety, depression, and caregiver burden. Nevertheless, further robust randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"161 ","pages":"104948"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104948","RegionNum":1,"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

Background: Cancer imposes significant psychological distress on both patients and caregivers. Dyadic interventions are designed to concurrently address the health problems of both, yet there remains limited evidence as to which specific dyadic interventions yield the most effective outcomes for both partners.

Objectives: To systematically synthesize and evaluate the comparative efficacy of various dyadic interventions on a wide range of outcomes within cancer patient-caregiver dyads.

Methods: Searches of eight electronic databases from inception to July 2, 2023, were performed. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by two reviewers utilizing the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Jadad score. Stata 17.0 was used for network meta-analysis, with the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) curve employed to rank interventions based on efficacy for each outcome. Effect sizes were reported using standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI), and publication bias was assessed via Egger's test. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO under CRD42023467172.

Result: A total of 37 studies, spanning 8 countries, were included. According to SUCRA rankings, WeChat couple-based psychosocial support and the eHealth symptom and complication management program were identified as the most effective interventions for improving quality of life in both patients and caregivers (SUCRA = 82.1 %, SMD = 7.30, 95 % CI: 1.02, 13.58; SUCRA = 86.6 %, SMD =1.17, 95 % CI: 0.04, 2.31, respectively). Emotionally focused therapy was ranked as the most effective intervention for enhancing dyadic adjustment (SUCRA = 100 %, SMD = 1.63, 95 % CI: 0.91, 2.36; SUCRA = 99.9 %, SMD = 2.04, 95 % CI: 1.26, 2.82, respectively). Couple-based intimacy enhancement and telephone-based dyadic psychosocial interventions were deemed most effective interventions in alleviating anxiety (SUCRA = 88.2 %, SMD = -0.83, 95 % CI: -1.65, -0.00; SUCRA = 95.6 %, SMD = -1.08, 95 % CI: -1.76, -0.41, respectively), while telephone-based dyadic psychosocial intervention and coping skills training were the most efficacious interventions for reducing depression in both partners (SUCRA = 95.2 %, SMD = -0.89, 95 % CI: -1.55, -0.23; SUCRA = 99.8 %, SMD = -2.31, 95 % CI: -3.27, -1.35, respectively). Additionally, caregiver educational program was ranked highest for reducing caregivers burden (SUCRA = 95.6 %, SMD = -1.20, 95 % CI: -1.55, -0.23).

Conclusion: The highest-ranked dyadic interventions identified in this analysis offer valuable insights for clinical practice, providing strategies to enhance the quality of life, strengthen dyadic relationships, and alleviate anxiety, depression, and caregiver burden. Nevertheless, further robust randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

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
针对癌症患者-护理者二人组的干预措施:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:癌症给患者和护理人员都带来了巨大的心理压力。虽然设计了一些干预措施来同时解决双方的健康问题,但关于哪些特定的干预措施能为双方带来最有效的结果,目前的证据仍然很有限:目的:系统地综合并评估癌症患者-护理者二人组中各种二人组干预措施对各种结果的比较效果:方法: 检索从开始到 2023 年 7 月 2 日的 8 个电子数据库。数据提取和质量评估由两名审稿人利用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和 Jadad 评分法独立完成。采用Stata 17.0进行网络荟萃分析,并利用累积排名(Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking,SUCRA)曲线根据每种结果的疗效对干预措施进行排名。疗效大小采用标准化均值差异(SMD)和95%置信区间(CI)进行报告,发表偏倚通过Egger检验进行评估。研究方案已在 PROSPERO 注册,注册号为 CRD42023467172:结果:共纳入了 8 个国家的 37 项研究。根据 SUCRA 排名,微信情侣心理支持和 eHealth 症状与并发症管理程序被认为是提高患者和护理人员生活质量的最有效干预措施(SUCRA = 82.1%,SMD = 7.30,95 % CI:1.02, 13.58;SUCRA = 86.6%,SMD = 1.17,95 % CI:0.04, 2.31)。情感焦点疗法被评为最有效的增强夫妻适应的干预措施(SUCRA = 100 %,SMD = 1.63,95 % CI:0.91,2.36;SUCRA = 99.9 %,SMD = 2.04,95 % CI:1.26,2.82)。以夫妻为基础的亲密关系强化和以电话为基础的夫妻心理干预被认为是缓解焦虑最有效的干预措施(SUCRA = 88.2 %,SMD = -0.83,95 % CI:-1.65,-0.00;SUCRA = 95.6 %,SMD =-1.08,95 % CI:-1.76,-0.41)。41, respectively),而基于电话的二人社会心理干预和应对技能培训是减少伴侣双方抑郁的最有效干预措施(SUCRA = 95.2 %,SMD = -0.89, 95 % CI: -1.55, -0.23; SUCRA = 99.8 %,SMD = -2.31, 95 % CI: -3.27, -1.35, respectively)。此外,护理人员教育计划在减轻护理人员负担方面排名最高(SUCRA = 95.6 %,SMD = -1.20, 95 % CI: -1.55, -0.23):本分析中确定的排名最高的干系人干预措施为临床实践提供了宝贵的启示,为提高生活质量、加强干系人关系、减轻焦虑、抑郁和照顾者负担提供了策略。尽管如此,仍有必要进一步开展强有力的随机对照试验来证实这些研究结果。
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
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
181
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "The effects of a facilitator-enabled online multicomponent iSupport for dementia programme: A multicentre randomised controlled trial" [Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 159 (2024) 104868]. Clinical characteristics and influencing factors of serious fall injuries among older inpatients: A secondary analysis of multicenter cross-sectional administrative data. Comment on Raya-Benítez et al. (2024) 'Effectiveness of non-instrumental early mobilization to reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients' Comment on Tan et al. (2024) 'Interventions to promote readiness for advance care planning: A systematic review and meta-analysis' Who gets the bed: Factors influencing the intensive care exit block: A qualitative study
×
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