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

Author:

Akdemir Aleyna1,Smith Allan “Ben”12ORCID,Wu Verena Shuwen1ORCID,Rincones Orlando1,Russell Hayley3,Lyhne Johanne Dam4,Kemp Emma5,David Michael26,Bamgboje‐Ayodele Adeola17

Affiliation:

1. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research South West Sydney Clinical Campuses UNSW Medicine & Health University of New South Wales Liverpool New South Wales Australia

2. The Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW Sydney New South Wales Australia

3. Ovarian Cancer Australia Melbourne Victoria Australia

4. Department of Clinical Oncology University Hospital of Southern Denmark Vejle Denmark

5. College of Medicine and Public Health Flinders University Adelaide South Australia Australia

6. School of Medicine & Dentistry Griffith University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

7. Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health School of Medical Sciences Charles Perkins Centre Faculty of Medicine and Health University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate engagement with and efficacy of guided versus non‐guided digital interventions targeting psychological symptoms of cancer via a systematic review of current evidence.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched. Eligible publications were randomised controlled trials of guided or non‐guided digital psychological interventions used in cancer settings reporting intervention efficacy and/or engagement. Study methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Random effects meta‐analyses were performed on outcomes with sufficient data, with sub‐group analyses of intervention type and follow‐up period.ResultsForty‐three studies were included. Studies varied by level of guidance, type of technology used, duration, and outcomes assessed. Most studies had a high overall RoB. Meta‐analysis indicated that guided interventions significantly reduced distress, anxiety, and fatigue, while non‐guided did not. For depression and quality of life, both guided and non‐guided interventions produced significant improvements. Guided interventions reported higher levels of intervention engagement than non‐guided.ConclusionsGuided digital psychological interventions were likely to be more effective than non‐guided ones for cancer patients, particularly in reducing distress, anxiety, and fatigue. Whilst both types were found to improve depression and life quality, guided interventions were associated with higher patient engagement. These findings suggest digital interventions could supplement traditional cancer care, warranting further research concerning long‐term effects and cost‐efficiency.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Oncology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3