Effects of couple-based dyadic interventions on breast cancer patients and their intimate partners: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Effectiveness of dyadic interventions among cancer dyads: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) regarding the impact of dyadic interventions delivered to both members of a cancer dyad, including a cancer patient and caregiver (e.g. family caregiver, intimate partner).

DESIGN

This overview of SRs was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews statement.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs and MAs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2. The quality of the included SRs/MAs was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs/MAs undertook quantitative synthesis to assess the impact of dyadic interventions on cancer dyads. Both the credibility of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures were below satisfactory standards. Prior SRs/MAs revealed several limitations such as lack of pre-published protocols or research objectives, failure to report excluded studies and insufficient details on funding sources for individual studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyadic interventions may prove advantageous for the physical health and dyadic adjustment of cancer dyads. Nevertheless, the reported results of dyadic interventions on the psychological health of patient-caregiver dyads affected by cancer are inconsistent. Thus, rigorous and comprehensive studies are requisite to establish reliable evidence for conclusive determinations.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings of this overview can guide healthcare practitioners when considering the use of dyadic interventions for cancer dyads. Moreover, these findings have the potential to enhance the integration of these approaches into clinical practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Our paper presents an overview of systematic reviews, and therefore, such specific details may not be relevant to our study.

Cancer caregivers at the end-of-life: How much me vs. how much we?

OBJECTIVE

This study explored cancer caregivers' individual and communal coping through their use of personal and communal pronouns during naturally occurring conversations.

METHODS

Nurse-home hospice visits involving cancer patients and their partner caregivers were audio recorded and then transcribed. Pronoun use was analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) software and descriptive statistics compared patient and partner caregivers' pronoun use. Personal and communal pronoun use was examined within six identified topics of caregiver speech: patient medical care, daily life, emotion, criticism/disagreement, relationships with family/friends, and asserting needs.

RESULTS

Dyads (N = 76) had an average of 35.8 years in their relationship. Caregivers used proportionately more first-person singular (I-talk) than first-person plural (we-talk). However, they used significantly less I-talk than patients and less I-talk than LIWC measures in naturally occurring speech. Caregivers were most likely to discuss patient medical care (41.9%) and least likely to discuss their own needs (3.8%).

CONCLUSION

Partner caregivers may find it easier to express emotions related to communal stressors, rather than their individual ability to cope with end-of-life caregiving.

INNOVATION

Examining personal and communal pronoun use by partner caregivers during nurse-home hospice visits may provide a more objective measure of caregiver coping than standard self-report measures.

"Is My Brain Ever Going to Work Fully Again?": Challenges and Needs of Cancer Survivors with Persistent Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment

Many cancer survivors experience cognitive impairments that impact memory, concentration, speed of information processing, and decision making. These impairments, collectively known as cancer-related cognitive impairments (CRCIs), are a key domain of unmet needs and can significantly impact a cancer survivor's identity and quality of life. However, there are no purpose-built, multi-domain, needs assessment tools specifically for CRCI. The development of such tools requires an in-depth understanding of cancer survivors' CRCI-specific challenges and associated needs. This study explored the challenges and associated needs of cancer survivors with persistent CRCI. An in-depth qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with (a) cancer survivors with perceived CRCI (n = 32) and (b) oncology health professionals (n = 19) was utilised. A reflexive thematic analysis of the interviews resulted in five overarching themes: (1) executing regular activities, (2) relational difficulties, (3) occupational functioning, (4) psychological distress, and (5) social functioning, as well as an additional informational needs domain. Ultimately, CRCI was found to directly produce a range of challenges that negatively, and persistently, impact cancer survivors' quality of life. Cancer survivors were also found to have a range of needs associated with these challenges. This research should be used to inform future challenges and needs assessment tools as well as treatment and supportive care priority areas directly relating to CRCI.

Are couple-based psychological interventions beneficial for the mental health of prostate cancer patients and their spouses? A systematic review and meta-analysis

As the survival rates for prostate cancer (PCa) have improved, there has been an increasing focus on the mental health of couples affected by this condition. There have been several couple-based psychological interventions, and yet the impact of this treatment modality on the mental health of PCa patients and their spouses is unclear. Consequently, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, and Web of Science up to March 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impacts of couple-based psychological interventions on both PCa patients and their spouses. Besides, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to evaluate the methodological quality and potential bias of the included studies. Moreover, statistical analysis and meta-analysis were performed utilizing Revman 5.4, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was employed to assess the certainty of evidence. A total of nine RCTs were included, utilizing anxiety, depression, distress, communication, and self-efficacy as outcome indicators to assess mental health. Results demonstrated that couple-based psychological interventions increased spouses' self-efficacy (WMD, 0.21; 95% CI: -0.00 ~ 0.42; P = 0.05) and communication (SMD, 0.34; 95% CI: 0.09 ~ 0.59; P = 0.009), while reducing their distress (SMD, -0.21; 95% CI: -0.40 ~ -0.02; P = 0.03). Nonetheless, there is a need for additional research on the effect of couple-based psychological interventions on the mental health of PCa-affected couples given the limited evidence supporting this conclusion.