The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Self‐management interventions for cancer survivors: A systematic review and evaluation of intervention content and theories
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21492 · Cited by 84,109
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 · Cited by 7,629
Health Promotion by Social Cognitive Means
Bandura, A. (2004) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/1090198104263660 · Cited by 7,238
Self-management education: History, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms
Lorig, K. R., & Holman, H. R. (2003) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2601_01 · Cited by 4,094
Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-7-16 · Cited by 3,053
Glanz, K., & Bishop, D. B. (2010) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103604 · Cited by 2,336
McGuire, S. (2016) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.3945/an.116.012211 · Cited by 1,900
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improved models of care for cancer survivors
Jefford, M., Howell, D., Li, Q., Lisy, K., Maher, J., Alfano, C. M., Rynderman, M., & Emery, J. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00306-3 · Cited by 281
Howell, D., Mayer, D. K., Fielding, R., Eicher, M., Leeuw, I. M. V., Johansen, C., Soto‐Pérez‐de‐Celis, E., Foster, C. N., Chan, R. J., Alfano, C. M., et al. (2020) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa083 · Cited by 255
Berkowitz, M. J., Thompson, C. K., Zibecchi, L., Lee, M. K., Streja, E., Berkowitz, J. S., Wenziger, C. M., Baker, J. L., DiNome, M. L., & Attai, D. J. (2020) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-020-00908-5 · Cited by 87
Pradhan, P., Sharpe, L., & Menzies, R. E. (2021) · Cancer Management and Research · doi:10.2147/cmar.s294114 · Cited by 60
The Future of Breast Cancer Research in the Survivorship Field
Soldato, D., Arecco, L., Agostinetto, E., Franzoi, M. A., Mariamidze, E., Begijanashvili, S., Brunetti, N., Spinaci, S., Solinas, C., Vaz-Luís, I., et al. (2023) · Oncology and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s40487-023-00225-8 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
