Premium
Effectiveness of telephone‐based interventions on health‐related quality of life and prognostic outcomes in breast cancer patients and survivors—A meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Zhang Q.,
Zhang L.,
Yin R.,
Fu T.,
Chen H.,
Shen B.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
european journal of cancer care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.849
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1365-2354
pISSN - 0961-5423
DOI - 10.1111/ecc.12632
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , quality of life (healthcare) , psychological intervention , anxiety , breast cancer , cochrane library , randomized controlled trial , depression (economics) , physical therapy , medline , confidence interval , strictly standardized mean difference , cancer , psychiatry , nursing , political science , law , economics , macroeconomics
The aim of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate the effect of telephone‐based interventions on prognostic outcomes and health‐related quality of life ( HRQ oL) in breast cancer patients and survivors. A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Web of science, Medline, EMBASE , CNKI and CBM database was carried out. Randomised, controlled trials ( RCT s) examining the effects of telephone‐based intervention versus a control group receiving no telephone intervention, on prognostic outcomes and HRQ oL with breast cancer were included. A meta‐analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of telephone‐based interventions on anxiety, depression, fatigue, self‐efficiency, physiological function, social‐domestic function and quality of life. In total, 14 studies involving 2002 participants were included. Due to the effect of telephone‐based interventions, statistically significant results were found on anxiety (standard mean difference [ SMD ] = −0.16, 95% confidence intervals [ CI ] [0.01, 0.30], p = .04), self‐efficiency ( SMD = 0.22, 95% CI [ − 0.34, − 0.10], p = .0004), social‐domestic function ( SMD = 0.19, 95% CI [ − 0.35, − 0.03], p = .02) and quality of life ( SMD = 0.54, 95% CI [ − 1.00, − 0.08], p = .02). Although the effects on depression, fatigue and physiological function were in the expected direction, these effects were not statistically significant ( p > .05) based on the insufficient evidence.