Cited by 11Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness

Non-pharmacological interventions on anxiety and depression in lung cancer patients’ informal caregivers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Lei, Fang, Lee, Eunice, Shin, Joosun, Lee, Shin-Young·2023·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer is one of the common cancers and the leading cause of death. Tremendous caregiving burden of informal caregivers of lung cancer causes psychological disorders, such as anxiety and depression. Interventions for informal caregivers of patients with lung cancer to improve their psychological health, which ultimately leads to patients’ positive health outcomes, are crucial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to: 1) evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions on the outcomes of depression and anxiety for lung cancer patients’ informal caregivers; and 2) compare the effects of interventions with differing characteristics (i.e. intervention types, mode of contact, and group versus individual delivery). Methods: Four databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria for the articles were peer-reviewed non-pharmacological intervention studies on depression and anxiety in lung cancer patients’ informal caregivers published between January 2010 and April 2022. Systematic review procedures were followed. Data analysis of related studies was conducted using the Review Manager Version 5.4 software. Intervention effect sizes and studies’ heterogeneity were calculated. Results: Eight studies from our search were eligible for inclusion. Regarding total effect for the caregivers’ levels of anxiety and depression, results revealed evidence for significant moderate effects of intervention on anxiety (SMD -0.44; 95% CI, -0.67, -0.21; p = 0.0002) and depression (SMD -0.46; 95% CI, -0.74, -0.18; p = 0.001). Subgroup analyses for both anxiety and depression of informal caregivers revealed moderate to high significant effects for specific intervention types (cognitive behavioral and mindfulness combined with psycho-education interventions), mode of contact (telephone-based interventions), and group versus individual delivery. Conclusion: This review provides evidence that cognitive behavioral and mindfulness-based, telephone-based, individual or group-based interventions were effective for informal caregivers of lung cancer patients. Further research is needed to develop the most effective intervention contents and delivery methods across informal caregivers with larger sample size in randomized controlled trials.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0282887

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Hybrid approaches may combine the benefits of in-person therapeutic engagement with delivery flexibility.

    “Hybrid approaches may combine the benefits of in‐person therapeutic engagement with delivery flexibility. 117 , 123”

    From Nonpharmacologic interventions for managing distress, anxiety, and depression for patients with cancer and their family caregivers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [123]

    The Results (Effect by mode of contact) and Discussion report that in-person and telephone-based interventions each reduced anxiety and depression among informal caregivers of lung cancer patients. The review assessed those delivery modes separately; it does not report that a hybrid approach combines therapeutic engagement with delivery flexibility. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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: 1

  1. [26]Hedges L, Olkin I. Statistical methods for medta-analysis. New York: Academic Press; 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lei, F., Lee, E., Shin, J., & Lee, S.-Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Chosun University (KR)
Corresponding author
Lee, Shin-Young
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2023-03-13
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
e0282887
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4324019024
Cited by
11
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
Keywords
lung cancer, informal caregivers, caregiver burden, anxiety, depression, non-pharmacological treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, psychoeducation, telephone-delivered intervention
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Quality of Life, 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