Guided versus non-guided digital psychological interventions for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of engagement and efficacy

Cancer survivors' acceptability and perspectives on engagement with digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia: a mixed methods perspective

PURPOSE

Insomnia is one of the most prevalent, persistent, and impairing conditions for which cancer survivors want treatment. However, the evidence-based first-line treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), is seldom available to cancer survivors. Digital CBT-I improves dissemination, but its impact depends on patients' acceptance and preferences. We aimed to determine the acceptability of and explore perspectives of digital CBT-I for cancer survivors.

METHODS

Responses collected at study exit by 123 cancer survivors (mean age 47.1 years, 95.9% women, 76.4% breast cancer) who completed a digital CBT-I, OncoSleep, were analyzed using mixed methods. The exit survey included quantitative measures of acceptability, and qualitative insights were gathered through a free-response item. Responses were systematically coded and analyzed using deductive and inductive approaches to identify recurrent themes.

RESULTS

The digital CBT-I, OncoSleep, received high ratings for perceived efficacy, satisfaction, helpfulness, usability, likelihood of future use of therapeutic techniques, likelihood of recommendation, and user experience. Patients who showed clinically significant improvements in insomnia severity reported better user experience. Analyses revealed eight themes were relevant for engagement with treatment: clinician support and monitoring, interactive features and ease of use, perceived efficacy of treatment techniques, convenience and non-hospital setting, validation of unmet needs, sleep medication discontinuation, tailored treatment content, and empowerment.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest digital CBT-I is well-accepted among cancer survivors. Digital CBT-I offers opportunities for treatment engagement.

Effectiveness of an Innovative Mobile-Based Perioperative Care Program for Women Undergoing Breast Cancer Surgery (iCareBreast): Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers among women and significantly impacts psychological well-being and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) during the perioperative period. Mobile health interventions offer a promising approach to providing education and psychosocial support, yet their effectiveness in this context remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative, mobile-based, perioperative care program for women undergoing breast cancer surgery (iCareBreast). The assessment focused on perioperative self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, fatigue, HR-QoL, and perioperative care satisfaction.

METHODS

A two-group randomized control trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Singapore. The intervention group used the iCareBreast app, offering four main resources: perioperative care guidance, breast cancer and surgery education, psychological support, and social support. The control group received standard hospital care. Participants in the intervention group engaged with the fully automated app daily for 29 days (two weeks before surgery, on the day of surgery, and two weeks after surgery). Data were collected face-to-face or on the web at three time points: baseline, immediately after the intervention (T1; two weeks after surgery), and at a 2.5-month follow-up (T2; three months after surgery). The primary outcome was perioperative care self-efficacy, while secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression, fatigue, HR-QoL, and perioperative care satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients with early-stage breast cancer scheduled for breast surgery were enrolled in the study, with 62 patients assigned to the iCareBreast group and 61 patients to the control group. The results showed no significant differences between the groups in the primary outcome-perioperative self-efficacy-at any time point. Baseline scores were similar (P=.80), and while the iCareBreast group showed slightly lower scores at T1 (mean difference [MD] -1.63, 95% CI -3.43 to 0.18; P=.08) and T2 (MD -1.90, 95% CI -4.06 to 0.26; P=.09), the differences were not statistically significant. Similarly, secondary outcomes, including anxiety, depression, fatigue, HR-QoL, and perioperative care satisfaction, showed no significant changes between groups (all P>.05). However, the iCareBreast group reported higher perioperative care satisfaction during the postintervention assessment. Satisfaction scores were comparable at T1 (P=.68), while at T2, the iCareBreast group showed a slight increase compared to the control group (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.04-0.73; P=.08), though the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The mobile-based psychosocial intervention, although satisfied by users, did not demonstrate significant benefits compared to standard care. This highlights the need to refine the iCareBreast app in future iterations to enhance its effectiveness in addressing the targeted health outcomes. Future mobile health research should prioritize optimizing user engagement strategies and incorporating personalized approaches to better address the perioperative care needs of patients with breast cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04172350; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04172350.

Predictors of quality of life and resilience in patients with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the psychosocial burdens of patients with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Ovarian cancer patients answered a quantitative survey assessing their resilience (BRS) and quality of life (FACT-G7) as well as clinical (first- vs. ≥ second-line treatment), demographic (age < 65 vs. ≥ 65 years) and COVID-19 pandemic-related psychosocial impairment, i.e. anxiety (GAD7); depression (PHQ2); global physical, mental, and social health (PROMIS items). Analyses of variance were applied to compare psychological impairment between patients on first- vs. ≥ second-line treatment and between patients aged < vs. ≥ 65 years at start of treatment. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of patients' resilience and quality of life based on demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables.

RESULTS

Most of the 93 patients rated their physical and mental health, and satisfaction with social activities as good. Eighty-seven (91.4%) were somewhat or very concerned about the pandemic. Patients on first-line therapy reported a better quality of life (p = 0.03) and better general health (p = 0.014) than those on at least second-line therapy. Patients < 65 years old reported significantly more concern about the pandemic than older patients (p = 0.008). Predictors of resilience were severity of anxiety (GAD-7) and mental health. Predictors of quality of life were general health, severity of depression (PHQ-2), and type of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in first line of treatment and younger patients could benefit from support in coping with pandemic-related burdens, meaning that attention should be paid to potential psychological distress, which should be treated alongside the cancer.

Assessing the impact of a self-guided digital intervention for fear of cancer recurrence (iConquerFear) in ovarian cancer survivors: a pilot randomised waitlist-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of ovarian cancer (OC) survivors report fear of cancer recurrence/progression (FCR/P) as the most challenging aspect of living with cancer. This pilot, randomised waitlist-controlled trial aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of iConquerFear, a self-guided online FCR intervention for OC survivors.

METHODS

Stage I-III OC survivors were recruited via Ovarian Cancer Australia (OCA) between October-December 2022. Participants were randomised to access iConquerFear immediately (intervention) or after 8 weeks (waitlist-control). Primary outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, and safety. Secondary outcomes included: engagement barriers/enablers, perceived impact of iConquerFear, and suggested improvements via semi-structured interviews. Exploratory outcomes included group differences in FCR and FoP after iConquerFear use.

RESULTS

Of 62 eligible survivors, 55 (61%) were randomised (intervention n = 29; control n = 26). At baseline 55% (30/55) reported severe FCR (FCRI-SF ≥ 22). Of those randomised, 51% (n = 28) accessed iConquerFear; 16/28 (57%) users completed ≥ 3/5 modules. Mean post-intervention acceptability score (IEUQ) was 3/4 (SD = 0.8). Three (11%) users withdrew due to distress from iConquerFear. Qualitative interviews (n = 13) identified 6 key themes (e.g., participant factors influencing engagement). Differences between intervention and control group changes in FCR/P were non-significant.

CONCLUSIONS

iConquerFear does not appear appropriate for OC survivors in its current format due to limited engagement, varied acceptability, safety concerns and minimal group differences in FCR/P after iConquerFear use. More work is needed regarding how to augment online interventions addressing sensitive issues such as FCR/P in OC survivors (e.g., offering complementary in-person support) to ensure feasibility, acceptability and safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with ANZCTR.org (ACTRN12622000592741p) on 21 April 2022.

Adapting a Self-Guided eHealth Intervention Into a Tailored Therapist-Guided eHealth Intervention for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer

Unlabelled

Therapist-guided eHealth interventions have been shown to engage users more effectively and achieve better outcomes than self-guided interventions when addressing psychological symptoms. Building on this evidence, this viewpoint aimed to describe the adaptation of iConquerFear, a self-guided eHealth intervention targeting fear of cancer recurrence, into a therapist-guided version (TG-iConquerFear) tailored specifically for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). The goal was to optimize patient outcomes while minimizing the need for extensive resources. The adaptation process followed the Information System research framework, which facilitated a systematic integration of knowledge and iterative testing. Drawing on insights from the original iConquerFear development, as well as feedback from end users, oncologists, and therapists, we began by identifying areas for improvement. These insights formed the foundation for the first design cycle. Initial internal testing revealed the need for several adjustments to enhance the intervention. While the core concept of iConquerFear remained unchanged, we made significant modifications to improve access by optimizing the platform for mobile devices, to support adherence by expanding the exercises, and to equip therapists with tools such as reflective questions and a monitoring control panel. External field testing with 5 survivors of CRC provided further validation. Participants reported a high level of acceptability, and their feedback guided additional minor points to consider incorporating in future versions. This study illustrates how a self-guided eHealth intervention can be successfully adapted into a therapist-guided format for fear of cancer recurrence, tailored to meet the needs of survivors of CRC. The described approach serves as a valuable framework for integrating therapist guidance into similar interventions, ensuring their relevance and effectiveness for targeted populations.

Digital Health Interventions to Improve Mental Health in Patients With Cancer: Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Mental health plays a key role across the cancer care continuum, from prognosis and active treatment to survivorship and palliative care. Digital health technologies offer an appealing, cost-effective tool to address psychological needs.

OBJECTIVE

This umbrella review aims to summarize and evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of digital health interventions for improving mental health and psychosocial outcomes for populations with cancer.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their inception to February 4, 2024. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis) investigating the efficacy of digital health interventions for psychosocial variables in patients with cancer were included. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool.

RESULTS

In total, 78 systematic reviews were included in this review. Among diverse delivery modalities and types of digital interventions, websites and smartphone apps were the most commonly used. Depression was the most frequently addressed, followed by quality of life, anxiety, fatigue, and distress. The qualities of the reviews ranged from critically low to high. Generally, despite great heterogeneity in the strength and credibility of the evidence, digital health interventions were shown to be effective for mental health in patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, digital health interventions show benefits for patients with cancer in improving mental health. Various gaps were identified, such as little research specifically focusing on older adult patients with cancer, a scarcity of reporting high-precision emotion management, and insufficient attention to other certain mood indicators. Further exploration of studies with standardized and rigorous approaches is required to inform practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42024565084; https://tinyurl.com/4cbxjeh9.

Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many cancer patients experience psychological distress and/or poor quality of life during or after their cancer treatment, yet they face multiple barriers to accessing psychological support. Digital psychological interventions represent a promising approach for addressing these barriers, however their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to July 2024. The primary outcomes were psychological distress and quality of life, and the secondary outcomes were measures of depression, anxiety, insomnia, fatigue, and fear of cancer recurrence in this study.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-six RCTs with 23,154 participants were identified. Of these interventions, three types-digitally-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), health education, and virtual reality therapy (VRT)-demonstrated significant reductions in psychological distress compared to non-active controls. Digital CBT, narrative interventions, and VRT significantly improved quality of life compared to non-active controls. For depression, both digital CBT and VRT were superior to the non-active control group. Regarding anxiety, CBT, psychoeducation, and VRT outperformed the non-active control group. In terms of fatigue, CBT, psychoeducation, VRT, and multi-component interventions all showed enhanced efficacy compared to the non-active control group. However, only CBT exhibited significantly superior effectiveness in alleviating insomnia compared to non-active controls. Similarly, only mindfulness-based interventions significantly reduced fear of cancer recurrence compared to the non-active control condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that digital CBT and VRT are highly promising options for reducing psychological distress and enhancing the quality of life among cancer patients; further high-quality randomized controlled trials involving diverse populations are essential to validate these findings.

Models of survivorship care in patients with head and neck cancer in regional, rural, and remote areas: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Rural people with head and neck cancers (HNC) are likely to experience poorer health outcomes due to limited access to health services, so many benefit from models of care that account for rurality. The aim of this review was to synthesise literature on models of care in this population.

METHODS

Studies were identified using seven databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, and Web of Science. Studies that tested or reported a model of care in rural HNC survivors were included. Data on characteristics and outcomes of the models were synthesised according to the domains in the Cancer Survivorship Care Quality Framework, and study quality was appraised.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included. Eight were randomised controlled trials (seven with a control group and one single-arm study). Three models were delivered online, nine via telehealth, and five in-person. Majority were led by nurses and allied health specialists and most addressed management of physical (n = 9) and psychosocial effects (n = 6), while only a few assessed implementation outcomes such as cost-effectiveness. None evaluated the management of chronic health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Positive outcomes were reported for domains of survivorship care that were measured; however, further evaluation of models of care for rural people with HNC is needed to assess effectiveness across all domains of care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Rural cancer survivors are a diverse population with unique needs. Alternative models of care such as shared care, or models personalised to the individual, could be considered to reduce disparities in access to care and outcomes.