CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Cancer survivorship and careEthics in Clinical ResearchHealth Policy Implementation Science

Lessons to Be Learned From 25 Years of Research Investigating Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer Patients

Open access
Moyer, Anne, Knapp-Oliver, Sarah K., Sohl, Stephanie J., Schnieder, Stefan, Floyd, Anna H. L.·2009·The Cancer Journal
DOI 10.1097/ppo.0b013e3181bf51fbPMC PMC3032403
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Conducting rigorous psychosocial intervention research with cancer patients has many challenges including encouraging them to join studies, asking them to engage in interventions or be part of control conditions, and to provide data over follow-up assessments. Here, we highlight valuable insights regarding such challenges provided by investigators studying psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. Handling these skillfully has important implications for the internal and external validity of this research and the ethical treatment of participants. Challenges noted in research reports included in a systematic review of 25 years of research (comprising 488 unique projects) investigating interventions designed to enhance cancer patients' quality of life were compiled. Among the difficulties mentioned was the fact that patients may not feel the need for psychosocial interventions and thus may not be interested in joining an intervention study. Patients who do feel the need for such interventions may be deterred from joining trials by the prospect of being randomized to a nonpreferred group; if they do join a trial, participants may be disappointed, drop out, or seek compensatory additional assistance when they are assigned to a control group. Apart from randomization, other aspects of research may be off-putting to participants or potential participants, such as the language of consent forms or the intrusiveness of questions being asked. Potential remedies, such as research awareness interventions, monetary incentives, partnering with cancer support organizations, and using designs that take preferences into account merit consideration and further research inquiry.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ppo.0b013e3181bf51fb

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cancer patients with greater psychosocial vulnerability, such as greater distress, depression, or social isolation, typically derive the greatest benefit from psychosocial interventions.

    “Several studies suggest that cancer patients with greater psychosocial vulnerability (e.g., greater distress, depression, or social isolation) typically derive the greatest benefit from psychosocial interventions (Moyer et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2010), potentially be due to a “ceiling effect” for well-adjusted patients.”

    From Who Benefits Most from a Brief Mindfulness Intervention to Reduce Anxiety During Stereotactic Breast Biopsy: the Moderating Effect of Trait Mindfulness, Spiritual Well-being, and Distress Tolerance (2021) · cites this paper as Moyer et al., 2009

    The Patient Reluctance section discusses patients’ perceived need for psychosocial interventions, and Practical and Logistical Difficulties says group interventions may reduce isolation. Neither reports that patients with greater distress, depression, or isolation benefit more than better-adjusted patients. Searches for greater benefit by baseline vulnerability found no passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [32]Swearingen CE Moyer A Finney JW Alcohol treatment outcome studies, 1970–1998: An expanded look at the nature of the research Addict Behav 2002 27 1 23 12628616
  2. [82]Institute of Medicine Cancer care for the whole patient 2008 Washington, DC The National Academies Press
  3. [85]Ribisl KM Walton MA Mowbray CT Minimizing participant attrition in panel studies through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review and recommendations Eval Program Plann 1996 19 1 25 1996

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moyer, A., Knapp-Oliver, S. K., Sohl, S. J., Schnieder, S., & Floyd, A. H. L.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
  • Moyer, Anne
  • Schnieder, Stefan
  • Floyd, Anna H. L.
ORCID
Venue
The Cancer Journal
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-09
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
345-351
ISSN
1528-9117 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/ppo.0b013e3181bf51fb
PMC
PMC3032403
OpenAlex
W2043284314
Cited by
29
References
82
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Cancer Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA100810)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
psychosocial interventions, cancer patients, quality of life, barriers to research participation, participant recruitment, trial dropout, financial incentives, cancer support organizations, participant preferences, research ethics, internal and external validity
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Compliance, Sociology, Medical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Patient Selection, Research Subjects

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