Premium
Psychosocial telephone interventions for patients with cancer and survivors: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Okuyama Sonia,
Jones Whitney,
Ricklefs Christine,
Tran Zung Vu
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
psycho‐oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.41
H-Index - 137
eISSN - 1099-1611
pISSN - 1057-9249
DOI - 10.1002/pon.3704
Subject(s) - psychosocial , psychological intervention , medicine , distress , randomized controlled trial , survivorship curve , physical therapy , family medicine , cancer , clinical psychology , psychiatry , surgery
Objective Over one third of patients with cancer experience elevated psychosocial distress. As screening for distress becomes more common, the number of patients referred for psychosocial care will increase. Psychosocial telephone interventions are recommended as a convenient and exportable alternative to in‐person interventions addressing psychosocial distress. This study reviews the efficacy of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial telephone interventions for patients with cancer. Methods We conducted a systematic review of peer‐reviewed RCTs evaluating telephone interventions in adult patients with cancer across the survivorship continuum. Results Through a database search, 480 articles were identified. After manual review, 13 were included, with 7 additional studies identified by back citation, totaling 20 studies. Participants were largely Caucasian, highly educated, with mean age ranging from 49 to 75 years. Most participants were patients with breast cancer ( n = 13 studies). Sample sizes were generally small, with most patients recruited from large medical centers. Only one screened for psychosocial need. Interventions varied greatly in length and intensity. Eight studies reported significant effects post‐intervention in the hypothesized direction on at least one psychosocial outcome measure. Of these eight studies, four included more than one follow‐up assessment; of these, only one reported significant effects at last follow‐up. No clear commonalities were found among studies reporting significant effects. Conclusions Methodological concerns and lack of consistency in adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines were identified. This body of research would benefit from well‐designed, theory‐based RCTs adequately powered to provide more definitive evidence for intervention efficacy. This will probably require multi‐institutional collaborations, guided by intervention and research methodology best practices. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.