Cited by 122Cancer survivorship and careBehavioral Health and InterventionsWomen's cancer prevention and management

Interventions to enhance self‐efficacy in cancer patients: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Merluzzi, Thomas V., Pustejovsky, James E., Philip, Errol J., Sohl, Stephanie J., Berendsen, Mark, Salsman, John M.·2019·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objective: Self‐efficacy expectations are associated with improvements in problematic outcomes widely considered clinically significant (ie, emotional distress, fatigue, and pain), related to positive health behaviors, and as a type of personal agency, inherently valuable. Self‐efficacy expectancies, estimates of confidence to execute behaviors, are important in that changes in self‐efficacy expectations are positively related to future behaviors that promote health and well‐being. The current meta‐analysis investigated the impact of psychological interventions on self‐efficacy expectations for a variety of health behaviors among cancer patients. Methods: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched with specific search terms for identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on psychologically based interventions. Included studies had (a) an adult cancer sample, (b) a self‐efficacy expectation measure of specific behaviors, and (c) an RCT design. Standard screening and reliability procedures were used for selecting and coding studies. Coding included theoretically informed moderator variables. Results: Across 79 RCTs, 223 effect sizes, and 8678 participants, the weighted average effect of self‐efficacy expectations was estimated as g = 0.274 (P < .001). Consistent with the self‐efficacy theory, the average effect for in‐person intervention delivery (g = 0.329) was significantly greater than for all other formats (g = 0.154, P = .023; eg, audiovisual, print, telephone, and Web/internet). Conclusions: The results establish the impact of psychological interventions on self‐efficacy expectations as comparable in effect size with commonly reported outcomes (distress, fatigue, pain). Additionally, the result that in‐person interventions achieved the largest effect is supported by the social learning theory and could inform research related to the development and evaluation of interventions.

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.5148

Cites

47 of 47 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?

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: 5

  1. [33]Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. British Medical Journal 2005; 330(7051): 1179. 15894554 PMC558012
  2. [41]Tukey J Exploratory Data Analysis Boston: Addison-Wesley; 1977.
  3. [42]Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical Meta-analysis Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
  4. [49]Viechtbauer W Conducting meta-analysis in R with metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010; 36(3): 1– 48.
  5. [54][dataset] Merluzzi TV, Pustejovsky JE, Philip EJ, Sohl SJ, Berendsen MA, & Salaman JS; March 14, 2019; Self-efficacy data.csv; CurateND; Link: https://curate.nd.edu/show/jw827943c2d. PMC6731146 31206917

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Merluzzi, T. V., Pustejovsky, J. E., Philip, E. J., Sohl, S. J., Berendsen, M., & Salsman, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Merluzzi, Thomas V.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-07-09
Volume
28
Issue
9
Pages
1781-1790
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2951606584
Cited by
122
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R03CA184560)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K01AT008219)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
self-efficacy, cancer patients, psychological intervention, health behavior, social learning theory, emotional distress, fatigue, pain, intervention delivery format
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Self Efficacy

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