[:en]Dear All,
Here is a new article that will interest many of you:
Bauereiss, N., et al. (2018). “Effects of existential interventions on spiritual, psychological, and physical well-being in adult patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Psychooncology 27(11): 2531-2545.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the evidence of existential interventions in adult patients with cancer. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and the WHO ICTRP were searched up until 26 January 2018. Eligibility criteria for studies were (1) adult patients with cancer, (2) evaluation of existential interventions, (3) compared with active/non-active control, (4) assessing relevant spiritual, psychological, or physical outcomes, and (5) conducted as randomized controlled trials. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) were calculated, and meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Effects were aggregated within four time horizons (post-treatment; 6 months). Heterogeneity was assessed by forest plots and I(2) . Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. This review has been registered with Prospero (CRD42016042895). RESULTS: A total of 3461 records were identified, of which 30 unique studies (3511 participants) were included in the review and 24 studies were included in meta-analyses. Existential interventions showed significant effects on existential well-being (g = 0.52; CI[0.13; 0.91; k = 10; I(2) = 85%) and quality of life (g = 0.21; CI[0.01; 0.42]; k = 17; I(2) = 75%) at post-treatment, on hope at post-treatment (g = 0.43; CI[0.12; 0.74]; k = 12; I(2) = 86%) and after 6 months (g = 0.25; CI[0.02; 0.48]; k = 3; I(2) = 0%) and on self-efficacy at post-treatment (g = 0.50; CI[0.09; 0.90]; k = 2; I(2) = 0%). No significant effects were found on the remaining outcomes and time points. Significant moderator effects were found for professional background of therapists, intervention concept, number of sessions, and setting. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that adult patients with cancer across all stages and types benefit from existential interventions. Future research should strive towards a higher standardization in particular with respect to outcome assessments.
[:DA]
Here is a new article that will interest many of you:
Bauereiss, N., et al. (2018). “Effects of existential interventions on spiritual, psychological, and physical well-being in adult patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Psychooncology 27(11): 2531-2545.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the evidence of existential interventions in adult patients with cancer. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and the WHO ICTRP were searched up until 26 January 2018. Eligibility criteria for studies were (1) adult patients with cancer, (2) evaluation of existential interventions, (3) compared with active/non-active control, (4) assessing relevant spiritual, psychological, or physical outcomes, and (5) conducted as randomized controlled trials. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) were calculated, and meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Effects were aggregated within four time horizons (post-treatment; 6 months). Heterogeneity was assessed by forest plots and I(2) . Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. This review has been registered with Prospero (CRD42016042895). RESULTS: A total of 3461 records were identified, of which 30 unique studies (3511 participants) were included in the review and 24 studies were included in meta-analyses. Existential interventions showed significant effects on existential well-being (g = 0.52; CI[0.13; 0.91; k = 10; I(2) = 85%) and quality of life (g = 0.21; CI[0.01; 0.42]; k = 17; I(2) = 75%) at post-treatment, on hope at post-treatment (g = 0.43; CI[0.12; 0.74]; k = 12; I(2) = 86%) and after 6 months (g = 0.25; CI[0.02; 0.48]; k = 3; I(2) = 0%) and on self-efficacy at post-treatment (g = 0.50; CI[0.09; 0.90]; k = 2; I(2) = 0%). No significant effects were found on the remaining outcomes and time points. Significant moderator effects were found for professional background of therapists, intervention concept, number of sessions, and setting. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that adult patients with cancer across all stages and types benefit from existential interventions. Future research should strive towards a higher standardization in particular with respect to outcome assessments.
[:]
