Psycho-oncology best practice guidelines and a service perspective: conceptualising the fit and towards bridging the gap

Evidence-Based Practice in Psychosocial Oncology from the Perspective of Canadian Service Directors

Evidence-based practices facilitate the effective delivery of psychological services, yet research on the implementation of evidence-based practices in psychosocial oncology (PSO) is scarce. Responding to this gap, we interviewed a diverse sample of 16 directors of Canadian psychosocial oncology services about (a) how evidence-based practices in psychosocial oncology are being implemented in clinical care and how the service quality is monitored and (b) what are barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice in psychosocial oncology services? Responses were grouped according to three main themes emerging from the data: screening for distress and referral to PSO services, delivery of evidence-based PSO services, and monitoring of PSO services. Our findings highlight facilitators and barriers to evidence-based practice in psychosocial oncology, which were related to the political, social, economic, and geographic contexts. The stepped care model was identified as a science-informed approach to improve the cost-effectiveness of triage systems and treatment delivery while facilitating more equitable access to services. Other facilitators included electronic screening and referral systems as well as protected time for clinicians to communicate more within their teams and participate in knowledge exchange. High caseloads presented a major barrier to acquiring and implementing evidence-based practices. Recommen–dations include increased support for evidence-based onboarding and continued training as well as for data collection regarding service needs, quality, and quantity to inform service monitoring and advocacy for more financial resources. Our findings are relevant to healthcare decision makers, implementation researchers, as well as service directors and practitioners providing psychosocial oncology care.

Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women worldwide. It is a distressing diagnosis and, as a result, considerable research has examined the psychological sequelae of being diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. Breast cancer is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety and reduced quality of life. As a consequence, multiple studies have explored the impact of psychological interventions on the psychological distress experienced after a diagnosis of breast cancer. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities and quality of life among women with non-metastatic breast cancer.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 16 March 2021. We also scanned the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently appraised, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 randomised controlled trials comprising 7998 participants. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. The updated review included 7998 randomised women; the original review included 3940 women. A wide range of interventions was evaluated. Most interventions were cognitive- or mindfulness-based, supportive-expressive, and educational. The interventions were mainly delivered face-to-face (56 studies) and in groups (50 studies) rather than individually (10 studies). Most intervention sessions were delivered on a weekly basis with an average duration of 14 hours. Follow-up time ranged from two weeks to 24 months.  Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated that the intervention may reduce depression (SMD -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.02; P = 0.04; 27 studies, 3321 participants, I2 = 91%, low-certainty evidence); anxiety (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.17; P = 0.0009; 22 studies, 2702 participants, I2 = 89%, low-certainty evidence); mood disturbance in the intervention group (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.009; 13 studies, 2276 participants, I2 = 56%, low-certainty evidence); and stress (SMD -0.34, 95% (CI) -0.55 to -0.12; P = 0.002; 8 studies, 564 participants, I2 = 31%, low-certainty evidence). The intervention is likely to improve quality of life in the intervention group (SMD 0.78, 95% (CI) 0.32 to 1.24; P = 0.0008; 20 studies, 1747 participants, I2 = 95%, low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, psychological intervention may have produced favourable effects on psychological outcomes, in particular depression, anxiety, mood disturbance and stress. There was also an improvement in quality of life in the psychological intervention group compared to control group. Overall, there was substantial variation across the studies in the range of psychological interventions used, control conditions, measures of the same outcome and timing of follow-up.

European white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia in head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a European White Paper document on oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) in head and neck cancer (HNC). There are wide variations in the management of OD associated with HNC across Europe.

METHODS

Experts in the management of specific aspects of OD in HNC across Europe were delegated by their professional medical and multidisciplinary societies to contribute to this document. Evidence is based on systematic reviews, consensus-based position statements, and expert opinion.

RESULTS

Twenty-four sections on HNC-specific OD topics.

CONCLUSION

This European White Paper summarizes current best practice on management of OD in HNC, providing recommendations to support patients and health professionals. The body of literature and its level of evidence on diagnostics and treatment for OD in HNC remain poor. This is in the context of an expected increase in the prevalence of OD due to HNC in the near future. Contributing factors to increased prevalence include aging of our European population (including HNC patients) and an increase in human papillomavirus (HPV) related cancer, despite the introduction of HPV vaccination in various countries. We recommend timely implementation of OD screening in HNC patients while emphasizing the need for robust scientific research on the treatment of OD in HNC. Meanwhile, its management remains a challenge for European professional associations and policymakers.

A systematic review of the quality of randomized controlled trials of psychological treatments for emotional distress in breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Meta-analyses of trials of psychological treatments for emotional distress in breast cancer (BCa) conclude that efficacious treatments exist. Subsequently, their implementation in routine care is widely promoted by health policy. However, the methodological quality of these trials has not been systematically evaluated. The present review investigates this issue.

METHOD

A systematic search identified randomized controlled trials of psychological treatments for emotional distress in BCa. The Psychotherapy Outcome Study Methodology Rating Form was used to assess the quality of trials. Generic design elements, including representativeness of sample, control of concomitant treatments, reporting clinical significance outcomes, and design elements specific to psychotherapy trials, including manualisation, therapist training, and therapist adherence and competence were evaluated.

RESULTS

91 trials were eligible. Overall, methodological quality was low. Generic design elements were limited in most trials: 15% specified as an inclusion criterion that participants were distressed; 10% controlled for concomitant treatments; and 11% reported the clinical significance of findings. Design elements specific to psychotherapy trials were also implemented poorly: 51% used treatment manuals; 8% used certified trained therapists; and monitoring of adherence and competence occurred in 15% and 4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality of psychological treatment trials for emotional distress in BCa is improving. However, if relevant health policies are to be adequately empirically informed, trials of greater methodological rigour are essential. Trials should include participants with clinical levels of distress, control for concomitant treatments and report the clinical significance of findings. Trialists must also consider the specific requirements of psychotherapy trials.

Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women worldwide. It is a distressing diagnosis and, as a result, considerable research has examined the psychological sequelae of being diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. Breast cancer is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety and reduced quality of life. As a consequence, multiple studies have explored the impact of psychological interventions on the psychological distress experienced after a diagnosis of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities, quality of life and survival among women with non-metastatic breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 16 May 2013: the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO; and reference lists of articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials in addition to handsearching.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for non-metastatic breast cancer in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently appraised and extracted data from eligible trials. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomised controlled trials comprising 3940 participants were included. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. A wide range of interventions were evaluated, with 24 trials investigating a cognitive behavioural therapy and four trials investigating psychotherapy compared to control. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated less depression (SMD -1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to -0.18; P = 0.02; 7 studies, 637 participants, I(2) = 95%, low quality evidence), anxiety (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.21; P = 0.0006; 8 studies, 776 participants, I(2) = 64%, low quality evidence) and mood disturbance (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; P = 0.0003; 8 studies, 1536 participants, I(2) = 47%, moderate quality evidence) for the cognitive behavioural therapy group than the control group. For quality of life, only an individually-delivered cognitive behavioural intervention showed significantly better quality of life than the control with an SMD of 0.65 (95% CI 0.07 to 1.23; P = 0.03; 3 studies, 141 participants, I(2) = 41%, very low quality evidence). Pooled data from two group-delivered studies showed a non-significant overall survival benefit favouring cognitive behavioural therapy compared to control (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.32; P = 0.63; 530 participants, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). Four studies compared psychotherapy to control with one to two studies reporting on each outcome. The four studies were assessed as high risk of bias and provided limited evidence of the efficacy of psychotherapy. Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A psychological intervention, namely cognitive behavioural therapy, produced favourable effects on some psychological outcomes, in particular anxiety, depression and mood disturbance. However, the evidence for survival improvement is still lacking. These findings are open to criticism because of the notable heterogeneity across the included studies and the shortcomings of the included studies.

Psychosocial interventions for patients with head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND

A diagnosis of head and neck cancer, like many other cancers, can lead to significant psychosocial distress. Patients with head and neck cancer can have very specific needs, due to both the location of their disease and the impact of treatment, which can interfere with basic day-to-day activities such as eating, speaking and breathing. There is a lack of clarity on the effectiveness of the interventions developed to address the psychosocial distress experienced by patients living with head and neck cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and psychosocial well-being for patients with head and neck cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 17 December 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for adults with head and neck cancer. For trials to be included the psychosocial intervention had to involve a supportive relationship between a trained helper and individuals diagnosed with head and neck cancer. Outcomes had to be assessed using a validated quality of life or psychological distress measure, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias, with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, we extracted outcome measures for combining in meta-analyses. We compared continuous outcomes using either mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with a random-effects model. We conducted meta-analyses for the primary outcome measure of quality of life and secondary outcome measures of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression. We subjected the remaining outcome measures (self esteem, coping, adjustment to cancer, body image) to a narrative synthesis, due to the limited number of studies evaluating these specific outcomes and the wide divergence of assessment tools used.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials, totaling 542 participants, met the eligibility criteria. Studies varied widely on risk of bias, interventions used and outcome measures reported. From these studies, there was no evidence to suggest that psychosocial intervention promotes global quality of life for patients with head and neck cancer at end of intervention (MD 1.23, 95% CI -5.82 to 8.27) as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). This quality of life tool includes five functional scales, namely cognitive, physical, emotional, social and role. There was no evidence to demonstrate that psychosocial intervention provides an immediate or medium-term improvement on any of these five functional scales. From the data available, there was no significant change in levels of anxiety (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.23) or depression following intervention (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19). At present, there is insufficient evidence to refute or support the effectiveness of psychosocial intervention for patients with head and neck cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for psychosocial intervention is limited by the small number of studies, methodological shortcomings such as lack of power, difficulties with comparability between types of interventions and a wide divergence in outcome measures used. Future research should be targeted at patients who screen positive for distress and use validated outcome measures, such as the EORTC scale, as a measure of quality of life. These studies should implement interventions that are theoretically derived. Other shortcomings should be addressed in future studies, including using power calculations that may encourage multi-centred collaboration to ensure adequate sample sizes are recruited.

Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and emotional wellbeing for recently diagnosed cancer patients

BACKGROUND

A cancer diagnosis may lead to significant psychological distress in up to 75% of cases. There is a lack of clarity about the most effective ways to address this psychological distress.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life (QoL) and general psychological distress in the 12-month phase following an initial cancer diagnosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO up to January 2011. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies. Electronic searches were carried out across all primary sources of peer-reviewed publications using detailed criteria. No language restrictions were imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions involving interpersonal dialogue between a 'trained helper' and individual newly diagnosed cancer patients were selected. Only trials measuring QoL and general psychological distress were included. Trials involving a combination of pharmacological therapy and interpersonal dialogue were excluded, as were trials involving couples, family members or group formats.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial data were examined and selected by two authors in pairs with mediation from a third author where required. Where possible, outcome data were extracted for combining in a meta-analyses. Continuous outcomes were compared using standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, using a random-effects model. The primary outcome, QoL, was examined in subgroups by outcome measurement, cancer site, theoretical basis for intervention, mode of delivery and discipline of trained helper. The secondary outcome, general psychological distress (including anxiety and depression), was examined according to specified outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 3309 records were identified, examined and the trials subjected to selection criteria; 30 trials were included in the review. No significant effects were observed for QoL at 6-month follow up (in 9 studies, SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.00 to 0.22); however, a small improvement in QoL was observed when QoL was measured using cancer-specific measures (in 6 studies, SMD 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.30). General psychological distress as assessed by 'mood measures' improved also (in 8 studies, SMD - 0.81; 95% CI -1.44 to - 0.18), but no significant effect was observed when measures of depression or anxiety were used to assess distress (in 6 studies, depression SMD 0.12; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.31; in 4 studies, anxiety SMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.22). Psychoeducational and nurse-delivered interventions that were administered face to face and by telephone with breast cancer patients produced small positive significant effects on QoL (in 2 studies, SMD 0.23; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.43).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The significant variation that was observed across participants, mode of delivery, discipline of 'trained helper' and intervention content makes it difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. It can be tentatively concluded that nurse-delivered interventions comprising information combined with supportive attention may have a beneficial impact on mood in an undifferentiated population of newly diagnosed cancer patients.