成人癌症患者及其家属的数字健康社会心理干预:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 3.3 Q2 ONCOLOGY JMIR Cancer Pub Date : 2024-02-05 DOI:10.2196/46116
Yingzi Zhang, Marie Flannery, Zhihong Zhang, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Melanie Bobry, Natalie Leblanc, Darcey Rodriguez, Chen Zhang
{"title":"成人癌症患者及其家属的数字健康社会心理干预:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Yingzi Zhang, Marie Flannery, Zhihong Zhang, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Melanie Bobry, Natalie Leblanc, Darcey Rodriguez, Chen Zhang","doi":"10.2196/46116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients' and families' psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies' general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients' quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.10; I<sup>2</sup>=42.7%; P=.01). The interventions effectively reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in patients, as shown by moderate effect sizes on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores (Hedges g=-0.72, 95% CI -1.89 to 0.46; I<sup>2</sup>=97.6%; P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698.</p>","PeriodicalId":45538,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Cancer","volume":"10 ","pages":"e46116"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10877499/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yingzi Zhang, Marie Flannery, Zhihong Zhang, Meghan Underhill-Blazey, Melanie Bobry, Natalie Leblanc, Darcey Rodriguez, Chen Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/46116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients' and families' psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies' general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients' quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.10; I<sup>2</sup>=42.7%; P=.01). The interventions effectively reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in patients, as shown by moderate effect sizes on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores (Hedges g=-0.72, 95% CI -1.89 to 0.46; I<sup>2</sup>=97.6%; P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45538,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Cancer\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"e46116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10877499/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/46116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/46116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:癌症患者及其家属往往会感到非常痛苦,生活质量也会下降。社会心理干预被用来满足患者和家属的社会心理需求。数字技术正越来越多地被用于为癌症患者及其家属提供社会心理干预:通过系统综述和荟萃分析,研究数字健康干预对成年癌症患者及其家属的社会心理影响的特点和有效性:在PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO、ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global和ClinicalTrials.gov等数据库中检索了测试数字干预对社会心理结果影响的随机对照试验(RCT)或准实验研究。乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的随机对照试验和准实验研究批判性评估清单用于评估研究质量。计算标准化平均差(即赫奇斯 g)以比较干预效果。采用随机效应建模方法,计划进行分组分析,以研究实施模式、干预持续时间、对照类型和剂量对结果的影响:系统综述共纳入了 65 项研究,涉及 10,361 名患者(平均每项研究涉及 159 名患者,标准差为 166;范围为 9-803 名患者)和 1045 名护理人员或伴侣(平均每项研究涉及 16 名护理人员或伴侣,标准差为 54;范围为 9-244 名护理人员或伴侣)。其中,32 项研究被纳入了数字健康干预对生活质量、焦虑、抑郁、痛苦和自我效能影响的荟萃分析。总体而言,RCT 研究的总体质量参差不齐(适用分数:平均 0.61,标准差 0.12;范围 0.38-0.91)。准实验研究的质量一般为中上水平(适用分数:平均 0.75,标准差 0.08;范围 0.63-0.89)。心理教育和认知行为策略被普遍采用。半数以上(38 人,59%)没有确定概念或理论框架。大多数干预都是通过互联网进行的(人数=40,占 62%)。干预次数的中位数为 6 次(1-56 次不等)。干预的频率差异很大,最常见的是自定进度(26 人,占 40%)。持续时间的中位数为 8 周。荟萃分析结果表明,数字化心理干预能有效改善患者的生活质量,但影响范围较小(Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.10; I2=42.7%; P=0.01)。干预措施有效减轻了患者的焦虑和抑郁症状,这体现在对医院焦虑抑郁量表总分的中等效应大小(Hedges g=-0.72, 95% CI -1.89 to 0.46; I2=97.6%; PConclusions:本研究证明了数字健康干预对患者生活质量、焦虑和抑郁的有效性。未来的研究需要对方法进行清晰的描述,以提高进行荟萃分析的能力。此外,本研究还提供了初步证据,支持在临床实践中整合现有的数字健康社会心理干预措施:ProCORD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Digital Health Psychosocial Intervention in Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Families: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Patients with cancer and their families often experience significant distress and deterioration in their quality of life. Psychosocial interventions were used to address patients' and families' psychosocial needs. Digital technology is increasingly being used to deliver psychosocial interventions to patients with cancer and their families.

Objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to review the characteristics and effectiveness of digital health interventions on psychosocial outcomes in adult patients with cancer and their family members.

Methods: Databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies that tested the effects of a digital intervention on psychosocial outcomes. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklists for RCTs and quasi-experimental studies were used to assess quality. Standardized mean differences (ie, Hedges g) were calculated to compare intervention effectiveness. Subgroup analysis was planned to examine the effect of delivery mode, duration of the intervention, type of control, and dosage on outcomes using a random-effects modeling approach.

Results: A total of 65 studies involving 10,361 patients (mean 159, SD 166; range 9-803 patients per study) and 1045 caregivers or partners (mean 16, SD 54; range 9-244 caregivers or partners per study) were included in the systematic review. Of these, 32 studies were included in a meta-analysis of the effects of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Overall, the RCT studies' general quality was mixed (applicable scores: mean 0.61, SD 0.12; range 0.38-0.91). Quasi-experimental studies were generally of moderate to high quality (applicable scores: mean 0.75, SD 0.08; range 0.63-0.89). Psychoeducation and cognitive-behavioral strategies were commonly used. More than half (n=38, 59%) did not identify a conceptual or theoretical framework. Most interventions were delivered through the internet (n=40, 62%). The median number of intervention sessions was 6 (range 1-56). The frequency of the intervention was highly variable, with self-paced (n=26, 40%) being the most common. The median duration was 8 weeks. The meta-analysis results showed that digital psychosocial interventions were effective in improving patients' quality of life with a small effect size (Hedges g=0.05, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.10; I2=42.7%; P=.01). The interventions effectively reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in patients, as shown by moderate effect sizes on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores (Hedges g=-0.72, 95% CI -1.89 to 0.46; I2=97.6%; P<.001).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of digital health interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression in patients. Future research with a clear description of the methodology to enhance the ability to perform meta-analysis is needed. Moreover, this study provides preliminary evidence to support the integration of existing digital health psychosocial interventions in clinical practice.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020189698; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=189698.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Cancer
JMIR Cancer ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Scope, Findability, and Quality of Information About Music-Based Interventions in Oncology: Quantitative Content Analysis of Public-Facing Websites at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers. Oral Cancer Incidence Among Adult Males With Current or Former Use of Cigarettes or Smokeless Tobacco: Population-Based Study. Uncovering the Daily Experiences of People Living With Advanced Cancer Using an Experience Sampling Method Questionnaire: Development, Content Validation, and Optimization Study. Impact of Patient Personality on Adherence to Oral Anticancer Medications: An Opportunity? Development of an Educational Website for Patients With Cancer and Preexisting Autoimmune Diseases Considering Immune Checkpoint Blockers: Usability and Acceptability 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