Meaning and purpose in life, happiness, and life satisfaction in cancer: Systematic review with meta‐analysis

Author:

Martinez‐Calderon Javier12,García‐Muñoz Cristina23,Heredia‐Rizo Alberto Marcos12,Cano‐García Francisco Javier4

Affiliation:

1. Departamento de Fisioterapia Facultad de Enfermería Fisioterapia y Podología Universidad de Sevilla Sevilla Spain

2. Uncertainty, Mindfulness, Self, Spirituality (UMSS) Research Group Sevilla Spain

3. Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy University of Cadiz Cadiz Spain

4. Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológicos Universidad de Sevilla Sevilla Spain

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo summarize current evidence on the potential cross‐sectional and longitudinal association between meaning or purpose in life and subjective happiness or life satisfaction among cancer patients.MethodsA systematic review with meta‐analysis and meta‐regression was conducted. CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Embase, PubMed, and PsycINFO (via ProQuest) were searched from inception to 31 December 2022. In addition, manual searches were performed. The risk of bias in cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Analytical Cross‐Sectional Studies and the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, respectively. Certainty in the evidence was judged using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. Meta‐regressions and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.ResultsWe included 13 cross‐sectional studies, comprising 12 different samples, and a longitudinal study. A total of 4968 individuals with cancer were interviewed across included studies. Certainty in the evidence was judged as very low for all outcomes, which was associated to serious concerns on risk of bias and imprecision of the results, and very serious concerns on indirectness of evidence. The assessed studies showed a marked heterogeneity in terms of participants' clinical (i.e., disease stage) and sociodemographic factors. A lack of reporting of these clinical and sociodemographic aspects were also evident among included studies.ConclusionsThe wide number of methodological flaws detected in this systematic review preclude to make any clinical recommendation. More rigorous high‐quality observational studies should guide future research on this topic.

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