Cited by 135Cancer survivorship and careChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeWomen's cancer prevention and management

Self‐management interventions for cancer survivors: A systematic review and evaluation of intervention content and theories

Open access
Cuthbert, Colleen A., Farragher, Janine F., Hemmelgarn, Brenda R., Ding, Qirui, McKinnon, Geoffrey P., Cheung, Winson Y.·2019·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objective: Self‐management has been proposed as a strategy to help cancer patients optimize their health and well‐being during survivorship. Previous reviews have shown variable effects of self‐management on outcomes. The theoretical basis and psychoeducational components of these interventions have not been evaluated in detail. We aimed to evaluate the evidence for self‐management and provide a description of the components of these interventions. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of self‐management interventions for adults who had completed primary cancer treatment by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry, and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Controlled Trials. We included experimental and quasiexperimental designs. Data synthesis included narrative and tabular summary of results; heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes precluded meta‐analysis. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the risk of bias of nonrandomized studies tool. Results: Forty‐one studies published between 1994 and 29 March 2018 were included. Studies were predominantly randomized controlled trials and targeted to breast cancer survivors. A variety of intervention designs, psychoeducational components, and outcomes were identified. Less than 50% of the studies included a theoretical framework. There was variability of effects across most outcomes. Risk of bias could not be fully assessed. Conclusions: There are limitations in the design and research on self‐management interventions for cancer survivors that hinder their translation into clinical practice. Further research is needed to understand if these interventions are an important type of support for cancer survivors.

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.5215

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • There is insufficient evidence that supporting patients' self-management alone can effectively improve patient-reported outcomes, health care or clinical outcomes.

    “There is insufficient evidence that supporting patients’ self-management alone can effectively improve patient-reported outcomes, health care or clinical outcomes [32].”

    From The BrEasT cancer afTER-CARE (BETTER-CARE) programme to improve breast cancer follow-up: design and feasibility study results of a cluster-randomised complex intervention trial (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    Section 4.1 (Clinical implications; page not available) says findings on the effects of self-management interventions are inconclusive for cancer survivors. Section 3.4 reports mixed patient-reported results and very limited measurement of health care and clinical outcomes. The review does not establish the claim for patients generally or specifically assess self-management support ‘alone.’ (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fukui S, Kugaya A, Okamura H, et al. A psychosocial group interven- tion for Japanese women with primary breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;89(5):1026-1036.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuthbert, C. A., Farragher, J. F., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Ding, Q., McKinnon, G. P., & Cheung, W. Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada
  • Alberta Health Services (CA)
Corresponding author
Cuthbert, Colleen A.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-15
Volume
28
Issue
11
Pages
2119-2140
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2971421289
Cited by
135
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
self-management interventions, cancer survivors, psychoeducation, theoretical framework, breast cancer survivors, intervention content, survivorship, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Self-Management, Adult, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Qualitative Research

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