Cited by 96Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchFamily Support in Illness

The effectiveness of patient-family carer (couple) intervention for the management of symptoms and other health-related problems in people affected by cancer: A systematic literature search and narrative review

Open access
Hopkinson, Jane B., Brown, Joanne C., Okamoto, Ikumi, Addington-Hall, Julia M.·2012·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context Cancer is widely acknowledged to impact on the whole family. Yet, we do not know if there is benefit (or harm) from patient-family carer interventions in the context of cancer care.Objectives To report a systematic search for and narrative review of patient-family carer interventions tested in the context of cancer care for effect on symptoms and other health-related problems in patients and/or their family members.Methods A systematic literature search was carried out using Cochrane principles. Searches were of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases for reported trials of patient-family carer focused interventions. Outcomes of interest were health indicators; measures of physical, psychological, social, and quality-of-life status of the patient and/or family member(s). Limits were English language; 1998 to March 2010; and adults. Relevant information was extracted, quality assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, and presented as a narrative synthesis (meta-analysis was not appropriate).Results The review found no empirically tested interventions for family groups (patient and two or more family members), but 22 interventions for patient-family carer partnerships (couple interventions) tested in 23 studies and reported in 27 publications. Recruitment and attrition were problematic in these studies, limiting the reliability and generalizability of their results.Conclusion In the trials of cancer couple interventions included in the review, a pattern emerged of improvement in the emotional health of cancer patients and their carers when the intervention included support for the patient-family carer relationship. Further investigation is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.03.013

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Hopkinson, J. B., Brown, J. C., Okamoto, I., & Addington-Hall, J. M.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Hopkinson, Jane B.
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
111-142
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080419991
Cited by
96
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Macmillan Cancer Support
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
cancer, family caregivers, couple-based interventions, symptom management, quality of life, emotional well-being, psychological well-being, cancer care, caregiver burden
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Pain, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Comorbidity, Treatment Outcome, 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