Cited by 117Cancer survivorship and careWomen's cancer prevention and managementBRCA gene mutations in cancer

The efficacy of interventions to improve psychosocial outcomes following surgical treatment for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Psychosocial interventions following breast cancer surgery

Open access
Matthews, Hannah, Grunfeld, Elizabeth A., Turner, Andrew·2017·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women across the world. The majority of women diagnosed with the disease undergo surgery, which is often associated with significant psychosocial morbidity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for women following breast cancer surgery. METHOD: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken using keyword and subject headings within 7 databases. Included studies employed a quantitative methodology presenting empirical findings focusing on interventions for female breast cancer patients following surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included and based on conventional values of effect sizes. Small effects emerged for the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in relation to anxiety (Hedges g = 0.31), depression (0.38), quality of life (0.40), mood disturbance (0.31), distress (0.27), body image (0.40), self-esteem (0.35), and sexual functioning (0.22). A moderate to large effect emerged for the efficacy of interventions in promoting improvements in sleep disturbance (0.67). Clear evidence emerged for the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy in promoting improvements in anxiety, depression, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: This is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate the efficacy of interventions on a range of psychosocial outcomes following breast cancer surgery. The meta-analysis highlighted that cognitive behavioral therapy was consistently the most effective psychosocial intervention promoting improvements in anxiety, depression, and quality of life. However, there are shortcomings in existing studies; the length of the follow-up period is typically short and the generalizability of findings was limited by small samples, both of which should be addressed in future studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.4199

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the most effective intervention to treat anxiety and depression in BCSs, often showing significant small-to-moderate treatment effects in patients with these conditions.

    “Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been identified as the most effective intervention to treat anxiety and depression in BCSs, often showing significant small-to-moderate treatment effects in patients with these conditions [13,14].”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion (p. 11) says CBT often produced significant effects on anxiety and depression, and the meta-analysis results (p. 10) report small pooled effects for both outcomes. Those pooled estimates cover multiple interventions, not CBT alone; the paper also cautions (p. 13) that robust conclusions about the relative efficacy of intervention types cannot be drawn. The body of the paper therefore does not establish CBT as the most effective or show moderate CBT effects on these outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evidence suggests that implementation of structured approaches, theoretically grounded and validated to specific contexts of use, best serves survivors.

    “Although participant survivors mentioned the intention to use the program as an à la cart platform or self-care toolbox, where different content and strategies could be prescribed simultaneously or used as needed, and not in a prescriptive manner, evidence suggests that the implementation of structured approaches, theoretically grounded and validated to specific contexts of use, best serves”

    From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion (p. 11) finds that cognitive behavioral therapy improves anxiety, depression, and quality of life after breast cancer surgery, supporting the general value of an established psychosocial intervention. But the paper does not find that structured, theoretically grounded approaches validated for specific contexts best serve survivors; its conclusion (p. 13) says robust comparisons among intervention types are not yet possible. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in improving a range of psychosocial outcomes in BCSs.

    “Recent meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of such interventions in improving a range of psychosocial outcomes [13,14].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [11]Burke S, Kissane DW. Psychosocial Impact of Breast Cancer: A Review of Interventions by Specialist Providers: A Summary of the Literature 1976 -1996. NSW, Australia: NHMRC National Breast Cancer Center;1998.
  2. [16]Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. Introduction to Meta -analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley;2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matthews, H., Grunfeld, E. A., & Turner, A.
Affiliations
  • Coventry University (GB)
  • Faculty of Health and Life Sciences; Coventry University; Coventry UK
Corresponding author
Matthews, Hannah
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-02
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
593-607
ISSN
1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2464931630
Cited by
117
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Coventry University Open Collections (Coventry university) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • The Open Collections (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Keywords
breast cancer surgery, psychosocial interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety, depression, quality of life, body image, self-esteem, sexual function, sleep disorders, postoperative distress, mood disturbance
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Breast Neoplasms, Depression, Female, Humans, Mastectomy, Quality of Life, Self Concept, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review