Open Access“Not just another meta‐analysis”: Sources of heterogeneity in psychosocial treatment effect on cancer survival
Author(s) -
Mirosevic Spela,
Jo Booil,
Kraemer Helena C.,
Ershadi Mona,
Neri Eric,
Spiegel David
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
cancer medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.403
H-Index - 53
ISSN - 2045-7634
DOI - 10.1002/cam4.1895
Subject(s) - psychosocial , medicine , hazard ratio , confidence interval , meta analysis , number needed to treat , randomized controlled trial , psychological intervention , cancer , intervention (counseling) , relative risk , psychiatry
Background Currently, there are eight meta‐analyses that address the question whether psychosocial intervention can prolong survival with widely disparate conclusions. One reason for inconsistent findings may be the methods by which previous meta‐analyses were conducted. Methods Databases were searched to identify valid randomized controlled trials that compared psychosocial intervention with usual care. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals were pooled to estimate the strength of the treatment effect on survival time, and z ‐tests were performed to assess possible heterogeneity of effect sizes associated with different patient and treatment characteristics. Results Twelve trials involving 2439 cancer patients that met screening criteria were included. The overall effect favored the treatment group with a HR of 0.71 (95% Cl 0.58‐0.88; P = 0.002). An effect size favoring treatment group was observed in studies sampling lower vs higher percentage of married patients’ (NNT = 4.3 vs NNT = 15.4), when Cognitive‐Behavioral Therapy was applied at early vs late cancer stage (NNT = 2.3 vs NNT = −28.6), and among patients’ older vs younger than 50 (NNT = 4.2 vs NNT = −20.5). Conclusions Psychosocial interventions may have an important effect on survival. Reviewed interventions appear to be more effective in unmarried patients, patients who are older, and those with an early cancer stage who attend CBT. Limitations of previous meta‐analysis are discussed.