Can emotional expressivity and writing content predict beneficial effects of expressive writing among breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy? A secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial data from China

BACKGROUND

To explore whether emotional expressivity and the patterns of language use could predict benefits from expressive writing (EW) of breast cancer (BC) patients in a culture that strongly discourages emotional disclosure.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a recent trial in which we compared the health outcomes between a prolonged EW group (12 sessions) and a standard EW group (four sessions) (n = 56 per group) of BC patients receiving chemotherapy. The Chinese texts were tokenized using the THU Lexical Analyser for Chinese. Then, LIWC2015 was used to quantify positive and negative affect word use.

RESULTS

Our first hypothesis that BC patients with higher levels of emotional expressivity tended to use higher levels of positive and negative affect words in texts was not supported (r = 0.067, p = 0.549 and r = 0.065, p = 0.559, respectively). The level of emotional expressivity has a significant effect on the quality of life (QOL), and those who used more positive or fewer negative affective words in texts had a better QOL (all p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was identified in physical and psychological well-being (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, the patterns of affective word use during EW did not mediate the effects of emotional expressivity on health outcomes (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the level of emotional expressivity and the pattern of affective word use could be factors that may moderate the effects of EW on QOL, which may help clinicians identify the individuals most likely to benefit from such writing exercises in China.

Effect of prolonged expressive writing on health outcomes in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the effects of prolonged expressive writing on health outcomes in breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy to help understand how the dosage of an expressive writing intervention might moderate its effects.

METHODS

A total of 112 breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were randomly allocated to the expressive writing group (n = 56) or the prolonged expressive writing group (n = 56). The expressive writing group received the standard expressive writing intervention based on Pennebaker's prompt to write for at least 20 min over four consecutive days (4 sessions). The prolonged expressive writing group used a modified prompt: write for at least 20 min 3 times a week over a 4-week period (12 sessions); patients could choose whether to write on consecutive days or not. All participants were required to write about their stressor-related upsetting or traumatic feelings about breast cancer. Outcomes were assessed and compared at baseline, as well as 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postintervention.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the patients' quality of life, or physical and psychological wellbeing between the expressive writing group and the prolonged expressive writing group at any time point (all p > .05). The quality of life of breast cancer patients significantly decreased in the two groups over time (F = 40.64, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the writing dosage does not moderate the effects of expressive writing on breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1800016278.

The Effects of Expressive Writing Interventions for Patients With Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of expressive writing (EW) interventions in patients with cancer.
.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases searched included both international and Korean databases through January 2015.
.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of the 20 trials that met the eligibility criteria of this review, a meta-analysis was conducted of 14 articles involving 13 randomized and 1 nonrandomized trials with 1,718 patients with cancer. EW interventions were compared with a neutral writing intervention or usual care (no writing). A significant small effect was noted on relieving cancer symptoms; however, the effects on psychological and cognitive outcomes were not significant. When subgroup analysis by control condition was performed, a significant effect on health-related quality of life was found between the EW intervention group and the usual care group. 
.

CONCLUSIONS

EW had significant small effects only on cancer symptoms. The findings suggest that the traditional EW intervention protocol may need to be intensified to confirm its effect on patients with cancer.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Current evidence for EW as a nursing intervention for improving physical, psychological, and cognitive outcomes among patients with cancer is promising, but not conclusive.

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

BACKGROUND

Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched.

DATA SOURCES

Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015).

REVIEW METHODS

Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost-consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom.

RESULTS

From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all of the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD -0.04 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW.

LIMITATION

Difficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effect of Expressive Writing Intervention on Health Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have arrived at conflicting conclusions on expressive writing (EW) as an intervention for breast cancer (BC) patients, but there has been no meta-analysis of these studies to assess the effectiveness of EW in BC population.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL and the www.clinicaltrial.gov database on ongoing clinical trials were searched to identify all the RCTs investigating efficacy of EW on the physical and psychological health in BC patients. The risk of bias of the original studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Our primary outcomes for physical and psychological health were respectively negative somatic symptoms and negative mood which were stratified by emotional, benefit-finding and multiple prompts in sub-group analyses. The data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.2 and Stata version 12.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

Of the 5,232 titles screened, we identified 11 RCTs with a total of 1,178 participants. The pooled results showed a significant effect of EW using either an emotional prompt or a benefit-finding prompt on reducing negative somatic symptoms in BC patients in the ≤3-month follow-up group [Mean Difference (MD), -13.03, 95% CI, -19.23 to -6.83, P<0.0001; MD, -9.18, 95% CI, -15.57 to -2.79, P = 0.005]. There was no significant effect of EW on physical health in the >3-month follow-up group. There were no significant differences regarding psychological health indexes between EW intervention and control groups at any of the follow-up time-points (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis reveals that EW intervention may have a significantly positive impact on the physical health but not the psychological health in BC patients, but this benefit may not last long. However, further high-quality studies with more homogeneity are needed to confirm the current findings.