Cited by 83Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness

Effectiveness of psychoeducational interventions among caregivers of patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cheng, Qinqin, Xu, Binbin, Ng, Marques S.N., Duan, Yinglong, So, Winnie K.W.·2022·International Journal of Nursing Studies

Abstract

Background Many of the needs of caregivers of patients with cancer are unmet, particularly their informational and psychological needs. Psychoeducational interventions that focus on providing caregivers with information, and on meeting their emotional and psychosocial needs, may therefore be effective. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of psychoeducational interventions on the outcomes of caregivers of patients with cancer and identify characteristics of effective psychoeducational interventions. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources The databases of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, the British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare, Scopus, Chinese Journal Net, and Wan Fang Data were searched in December 2020. Clinical trial registers, related websites and reference lists of included studies were also examined. Review methods The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to appraise the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted, and narrative syntheses were performed where meta-analysis was inappropriate. Results Fourteen articles describing 12 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that psychoeducational interventions have short-term (immediately post-intervention) positive effects on relieving anxiety [SMD: -0.50, 95%CI: (-0.97, -0.02), p = 0.04], depression [SMD: -0.54, 95%CI: (-0.76…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104162

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, Q., Xu, B., Ng, M. S. N., Duan, Y., & So, W. K. W.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Third Xiangya Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
So, Winnie K.W.
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
127
Pages
104162
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200430033
Cited by
83
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
Keywords
psychoeducational intervention, cancer caregivers, caregiver burden, caregiver anxiety, caregiver depression, quality of life, self-efficacy, physical health, intervention characteristics, caregiver needs, intervention effectiveness, intervention delivery mode, intervention duration, intervention intensity, intervention frequency, intervention dosage
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Caregivers

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