Efficacy of Web‐Based Interventions on Depression and Anxiety in Cancer Caregivers: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of web‐based interventions in depression and anxiety among informal caregivers of patients with cancer. Methods: Databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched from inception to April 15, 2024. Eligible studies encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on web‐based interventions tailored to informal caregivers of patients with cancer. The effect size was calculated as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) utilizing a random effects model. The risk of bias was assessed independently utilizing Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool (version 2.0) for RCTs. Results: A total of 12 RCTs were incorporated into this meta‐analysis. Web‐based interventions demonstrated a significant effect in ameliorating depression among informal caregivers of patients with cancer compared to the control group (SMD = −0.21, 95% CI = −0.36 to −0.05, p < 0.01, I 2 = 15%). Additionally, a significant effect was also observed in alleviating anxiety (SMD = −0.20, 95% CI = −0.36 to −0.05, p = 0.77, I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: Web‐based interventions might be effective in reducing depression and anxiety among informal caregivers of patients with cancer. Nevertheless, several studies with an overall high risk of bias were included. As a result of the limited number and heterogeneity of the studies included in the subgroup analysis, deriving definitive conclusions on the most effective intervention components was challenging. Therefore, further studies incorporating high‐quality research are warranted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Hybrid approaches may combine the benefits of in-person therapeutic engagement with delivery flexibility.
“Hybrid approaches may combine the benefits of in‐person therapeutic engagement with delivery flexibility. 117 , 123”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 9
- Authors
- Kim, M., Tan, K. R., & Coombs, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Kangwon National University (KR)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Coombs, Lorinda A.
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-07
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e9301-e9301
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W4400930053
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Keywords
- online intervention, depression, anxiety, cancer caregivers, informal caregivers, caregiver burden, digital mental health interventions
- MeSH terms
- Internet-Based Intervention, Anxiety, Depression, Humans, Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Caregivers, Internet
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