Cited by 10Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Effects of interventions on rumination among individuals with cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Öcalan, Sinem, Üzar‐Özçetin, Yeter Sinem·2021·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to examine the effects of interventions on rumination among individuals with cancer. Design: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Data Sources: Six databases (Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsyArticles, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles published between January 2000 and April 2020. Review methods: The findings of experimental studies (including both experimental and control groups) related to interventions to effect rumination of individuals with cancer were included. Comprehensive meta‐analysis was used to analyse the data. Hedges’ g and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to estimate the effect. Additionally, funnel plots were created and heterogeneity was analysed using the I 2 test. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) was used. Results: Eight studies, which included a total sample of 856 individuals with cancer, were included. Half of the studies ( n = 4) were randomised controlled trials, and six of them had conducted mindfulness‐based interventions. The interventions had significant effects on rumination among individuals with cancer (z = −2.356, Q = 167.663, p < 0.001, I 2 = 95.825%). The effect size was −0.894 (95% CI = [−1.638, −0.150]) and statistically significant ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: The interventions had reduced rumination among individuals with cancer. These effects should be interpreted with caution because there was a high level of heterogeneity. However, only a few studies were included, and the findings underscore the need for further research. Impact: Many individuals are likely to benefit from rumination‐focused interventions, especially mindfulness‐based interventions. Nurses should utilise available opportunities to facilitate the optimal management of cancer‐related rumination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.14916

Cites

56 of 56 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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Öcalan, S., & Üzar‐Özçetin, Y. S.
Affiliations
Hacettepe University (TR)
Corresponding author
  • Öcalan, Sinem
  • Üzar‐Özçetin, Yeter Sinem
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-06-14
Volume
77
Issue
11
Pages
4347-4370
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W3172851346
Cited by
10
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
rumination, cancer, mindfulness-based interventions, psychological intervention, cancer patients, nursing care
MeSH terms
Humans, Neoplasms, Stress, Psychological, Mindfulness

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