Cited by 51Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careFamily Support in Illness

Evaluating the efficacy of psycho-social interventions for informal carers of cancer patients: a systematic review of the research literature

Ussher, Jane Maria, Perz, Janette, Hawkins, Yasmin, Brack, Marita·2009·Health Psychology Review

Abstract

Recognition that informal cancer carers experience unmet needs and psychological distress has led to the development of a range of psycho-social interventions. The efficacy of such interventions is examined through a systematic review of the research literature, following National Health and Medical Research Council and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Of 13 level II randomised controlled trials (RCTs), only eight showed significant differences across groups, with moderate effect size. This included improvement in caregiver experience or appraisal of caregiving following psycho-education (two studies); improved sexual satisfaction, dyadic coping, relationship quality and communication, or reduced psychological distress, following couple counselling (4); reduced distress following family grief therapy (1); and reduction in distress in bereavement following home palliative care (1). Level III and IV studies were also reviewed, reporting positive effects of psycho-education (5), problem solving (3), an arts intervention (1) and a support group (1). However, methodological concerns limit the generalisability of findings of level III and IV studies. It is concluded that interventions should target those most in need of support; recognise specific needs of carers across cancer type and stage, gender and relationship context; be theory based; and evaluations should utilise RCT designs with outcome measures appropriate to the specific aims of the intervention, rather than global measures of distress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437190903033401

Cites

114 of 114 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
Ussher, J. M., Perz, J., Hawkins, Y., & Brack, M.
Affiliations
Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Ussher, Jane Maria
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Published
2009-03
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
85-107
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
OpenAlex
W2061347778
Cited by
50
References
112
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
informal caregivers, cancer patients, psychosocial interventions, caregiver psychological distress, psychoeducation, couple therapy, bereavement, home-based palliative care, problem solving, support groups, arts-based interventions, dyadic coping, relationship quality, sexual satisfaction, intervention efficacy

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