Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer: a C ochrane systematic review
Abstract
To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression. We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with hand searching of journals and reference lists. Randomised controlled trials were eligible if they included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psycho-educational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel. Our outcomes were an improvement in QoL, self-efficacy and knowledge and a reduction in distress, uncertainty and depression. Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In all, 19 studies with a total of 3 204 men, with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, comparing psychosocial interventions vs usual care were included in this review. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general health-related QoL (GHQoL) at end of intervention (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.22) based on low quality evidence. There was no cl…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 32 · Cited by 61
- Authors
- Parahoo, K., McDonough, S., McCaughan, E., Noyes, J., Semple, C., Halstead, E. J., Neuberger, M. M., & Dahm, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Ulster (GB)
- Institute of Nursing and Health Research University of Ulster Coleraine Co. Londonderry UK
- Bangor University (GB)
- South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (GB)
- Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parahoo, Kader
- Venue
- BJU International
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-03-17
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 174-183
- ISSN
- 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-410X
- OpenAlex
- W2150289999
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 0.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Sunderland Repository (University of Sunderland) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Health and Social Care Research and Development Office (Northern Ireland)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- psychosocial interventions, prostate cancer, quality of life, self-efficacy, cancer knowledge, distress, uncertainty, depression, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducational intervention, supportive counseling, cancer-specific quality of life, men's health, psychological support for cancer patients, usual care comparison, intervention effectiveness evaluation, risk of bias in trials
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Social Support, Self 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