What is (and what is not) the meaning of evidence‐based psychosocial intervention?

Psychosocial therapies for patients with cancer: a current review of interventions using psychoneuroimmunology-based outcome measures

BACKGROUND

As part of a new standard of quality cancer care, the Institute of Medicine has recommended inclusion of therapies that address psychosocial needs of cancer patients. A range of psychosocial therapies for managing acute and chronic stress have been developed for patients with cancer, based on the scientific framework of psychoneuroimmunology (PNI). The current review aimed to identify studies of new and emerging PNI-based psychosocial therapies in patients with cancer that have used neuroendocrine-immune biomarkers as outcomes. Specifically, this review aimed to evaluate studies based on the cancer populations involved, types of psychosocial therapies, and PNI measures employed.

METHOD

Methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Google Scholar online databases were searched using combinations of keywords obtained from previous reviews of psychosocial interventions. Studies from 2001 to 2012 were included if they ( : ) were published in English, ( : ) used experimental or quasi-experimental designs, ( : ) evaluated psychosocial therapies, ( : ) involved cancer patients, and ( : ) reported results on at least one neuroendocrine or immune outcome measure. The search strategy identified 403 records and 2 stages of screening were used to eliminate irrelevant studies.

RESULT

A total of 24 cancer-specific studies of psychosocial therapies that used PNI-based outcome measures were included in this review. Most studies included early-stage breast cancer patients, and 2 major types of therapies emerged, cognitive-behavioral therapies and complementary medical therapies. Durations of interventions ranged widely, from 1.3 hours over a single week to 27 hours over 18 weeks. Considerable diversity in PNI outcomes made statistical comparisons problematic. Studies of cognitive-behavioral therapies were found to have reported the most success in impacting PNI-based measures, which were typically functional measures of the immune system, for example, cytokines.

CONCLUSION

Several issues related to research methodology are discussed. Most important, studies examining dose-response associations and resource allocation are needed to guide future research. A standardized panel of psychosocial instruments and biomarkers for PNI-based studies would enhance comparability of findings across studies when evaluating this body of research and assist with integrating psychosocial therapies into the standard of cancer care.

United we stand: emphasizing commonalities across cognitive-behavioral therapies

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has a rich history of alleviating the suffering associated with mental disorders. Recently, there have been exciting new developments, including multicomponent approaches, incorporated alternative therapies (e.g., meditation), targeted and cost-effective technologies, and integrated biological and behavioral frameworks. These field-wide changes have led some to emphasize the differences among variants of CBT. Here, we draw attention to commonalities across cognitive-behavioral therapies, including shared goals, change principles, and therapeutic processes. Specifically, we offer a framework for examining common CBT characteristics that emphasizes behavioral adaptation as a unifying goal and three core change principles, namely (a) context engagement to promote adaptive imagining and enacting of new experiences; (b) attention change to promote adaptive sustaining, shifting, and broadening of attention; and (c) cognitive change to promote adaptive perspective taking on events so as to alter verbal meanings. Further, we argue that specific intervention components, including behavioral exposure/activation, attention training, acceptance/tolerance, decentering/defusion, and cognitive reframing, may be emphasized to a greater or lesser degree by different treatment packages but are still fundamentally common therapeutic processes that are present across approaches and are best understood by their relationships to these core CBT change principles. We conclude by arguing for shared methodological and design frameworks for investigating unique and common characteristics to advance a unified and strong voice for CBT in a widening, increasingly multimodal and interdisciplinary, intervention science.