Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 29, Issue 9, pp 1274–1282 | Cite as

Effectiveness of Family and Caregiver Interventions on Patient Outcomes in Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review

  • Joan M. Griffin
  • Laura A. Meis
  • Roderick MacDonald
  • Nancy Greer
  • Agnes Jensen
  • Indulis Rutks
  • Timothy J. Wilt
Article

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Family and caregiver interventions typically aim to develop family members’ coping and caregiving skills and to reduce caregiver burden. We conducted a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating whether family-involved interventions improve patient outcomes among adults with cancer.

METHODS

RCTs enrolling patients with cancer were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycInfo and other sources through December 2012. Studies were limited to subjects over 18 years of age, published in English language, and conducted in the United States. Patient outcomes included global quality of life; physical, general psychological and social functioning; depression/anxiety; symptom control and management; health care utilization; and relationship adjustment.

RESULTS

We identified 27 unique trials, of which 18 compared a family intervention to usual care or wait list (i.e., usual care with promise of intervention at completion of study period) and 13 compared one family intervention to another individual or family intervention (active control). Compared to usual care, overall strength of evidence for family interventions was low. The available data indicated that overall, family-involved interventions did not consistently improve outcomes of interest. Similarly, with low or insufficient evidence, family-involved interventions were not superior to active controls at improving cancer patient outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Overall, there was low or insufficient evidence that family and caregiver interventions were superior to usual or active care. Variability in study populations and interventions made pooling of data problematic and generalizing findings from any single study difficult. Most of the included trials were of poor or fair quality.

KEY WORDS

cancer systematic review caregivers patient outcomes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). The findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or QUERI. The sponsor was not involved in any aspect of the study’s design and conduct; data collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

The authors thank members of the Technical Expert Panel who provided consultation on this review.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest. None of the authors has a direct interest in the results of the research. Publication will not confer a benefit on them or on any organization with which they are associated.

Supplementary material

11606_2014_2873_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Appendix Figure 1 (DOCX 42 kb)
11606_2014_2873_MOESM2_ESM.doc (43 kb)
Appendix Figure 2 (DOC 43 kb)
11606_2014_2873_MOESM3_ESM.docx (103 kb)
Appendix Table 1 (DOCX 103 kb)
11606_2014_2873_MOESM4_ESM.docx (54 kb)
Appendix Table 2 (DOCX 53 kb)
11606_2014_2873_MOESM5_ESM.docx (35 kb)
Appendix Table 3 (DOCX 35 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    American Association for Cancer Research. AACR Cancer Progress Report 2013. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(Supplement 1):S1–86.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson CA, Spilsbury K, Hall J, Birks Y, Barnes C, Adamson J. Systematic review of information and support interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. BMC Geriatr. 2007;7:18.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goy E, Kansagara D, Freeman M. A systematic evidence review ofinterventions for non-professional caregivers of individuals with dementia. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs; 2010 October. Accessed March 12, 2014. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK49194/.
  4. 4.
    Sorensen S, Pinquart M, Duberstein P. How effective are interventions with caregivers? An updated meta-analysis. Gerontologist. 2002;42:356–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Visser-Meily A, van Heugten C, Post M, Schepers V, Lindeman E. Intervention studies for caregivers of stroke survivors: a critical review. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56:257–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griffin JM, Meis L, Greer N, Jensen A, MacDonald R, Rutks I, et al. Effectiveness of Family Caregiver Interventions on Patient Outcomes among Adults with Cancer or Memory-Related Disorders: A Systematic Review. VA-ESP Project #09-009; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torti FM Jr, Gwyther LP, Reed SD, Friedman JY, Schulman KA. A multinational review of recent trends and reports in dementia caregiver burden. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2004;18:99–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corbett A, Stevens J, Aarsland D, et al. Systematic review of services providing information and/or advice to people with dementia and/or their caregivers. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012;27:628–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Accessed March 12, 2014. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  10. 10.
    Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB, et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:513–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manne SL, Ostroff JS, Winkel G, et al. Couple-focused group intervention for women with early stage breast cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:634–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Giesler RB, Given B, Given CW, et al. Improving the quality of life of patients with prostate carcinoma: a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a nurse-driven intervention. Cancer. 2005;104:752–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer. 2007;110:2809–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mishel MH, Belyea M, Germino BB, et al. Helping patients with localized prostate carcinoma manage uncertainty and treatment side effects: nurse-delivered psychoeducational intervention over the telephone. Cancer. 2002;94:1854–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campbell LC, Keefe FJ, McKee DC, et al. Prostate cancer in African Americans: relationship of patient and partner self-efficacy to quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2004;28:433–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell LC, Keefe FJ, Scipio C, et al. Facilitating research participation and improving quality of life for African American prostate cancer survivors and their intimate partners. A pilot study of telephone-based coping skills training. Cancer. 2007;109(2 Suppl):414–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manne SL, Kissane DW, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP, Winkel G, Zaider T. Intimacy-enhancing psychological intervention for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their partners: a pilot study. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1197–209.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCorkle R, Siefert ML, Dowd MFE, Robinson JP, Pickett M. Effects of advanced practice nursing on patient and spouse depressive symptoms, sexual function, and marital interaction after radical prostatectomy. Urol Nurs. 2007;27:65–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Northouse L, Kershaw T, Mood D, Schafenacker A. Effects of a family intervention on the quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psycho-Oncology. 2005;14:478–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Budin WC, Hoskins CN, Haber J, et al. Breast cancer: Education, counseling, and adjustment among patients and partners: A randomized clinical trial. Nurs Res. 2008;57:199–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baucom DH, Porter LS, Kirby JS, et al. A couple-based intervention for female breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2009;18:276–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kayser K, Feldman BN, Borstelmann NA, Daniels AA. Effects of a randomized couple-based intervention on quality of life of breast cancer patients and their partners. Soc Work Res. 2010;34:20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manne S, Ostroff JS, Winkel G. Social-cognitive processes as moderators of a couple-focused group intervention for women with early stage breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2007;26:735–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keefe FJ, Ahles TA, Sutton L, et al. Partner-guided cancer pain management at the end of life: a preliminary study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2005;29:263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kozachik SL, Given CW, Given BA, et al. Improving depressive symptoms among caregivers of patients with cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28:1149–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nezu AM, Nezu CM, Felgoise SH, McClure KS, Houts PS. Project Genesis: assessing the efficacy of problem-solving therapy for distressed adult cancer patients. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71:1036–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blanchard CG, Toseland RW, McCallion P. The effects of a problem-solving intervention with spouses of cancer patients. J Psychosoc Oncol. 1996;14:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meyers FJ, Carducci M, Loscalzo MJ, Linder J, Greasby T, Beckett LA. Effects of a problem-solving intervention (COPE) on quality of life for patients with advanced cancer on clinical trials and their caregivers: Simultaneous care educational intervention (SCEI): Linking palliation and clinical trials. J Palliat Med. 2011;14:465–73.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurtz ME, Kurtz J, Given CW, Given B. A randomized, controlled trial of a patient/caregiver symptom control intervention: Effects on depressive symptomatology of caregivers of cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2005;30:112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McMillan SC, Small BJ. Using the COPE intervention for family caregivers to improve symptoms of hospice homecare patients: a clinical trial. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007;34:313–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Badger T, Segrin C, Dorros SM, Meek P, Lopez AM. Depression and anxiety in women with breast cancer and their partners. Nurs Res. 2007;56:44–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Badger TA, Segrin C, Figueredo AJ, et al. Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life in prostate cancer survivors and their intimate or family partners. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:833–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schover LR, Canada AL, Yuan Y, et al. A randomized trial of internet-based versus traditional sexual counseling for couples after localized prostate cancer treatment. Cancer. 2012;118:500–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Given B, Given CW, Sikorskii A, Jeon S, Sherwood P, Rahbar M. The impact of providing symptom management assistance on caregiver reaction: Results of a randomized trial. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2006;32:433–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Canada AL, Neese LE, Sui D, Schover LR. Pilot intervention to enhance sexual rehabilitation for couples after treatment for localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104:2689–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gustafson DH, DuBenske LL, Namkoong K, et al. An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer: A randomized trial. Cancer. 2013;119:1744–51.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Porter LS, Keefe FJ, Garst J, et al. Caregiver-assisted coping skills training for lung cancer: Results of a randomized clinical trial. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;41:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Porter LS, Keefe FJ, Baucom DH, et al. Partner-assisted emotional disclosure for patients with gastrointestinal cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2009;115(18 Suppl):4326–38.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mokuau N, Braun KL, Wong LK, Higuchi P, Gotay CC. Development of a family intervention for Native Hawaiian women with cancer: a pilot study. Soc Work. 2008;53:9–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stephenson NLN, Swanson M, Dalton J, Keefe FJ, Engelke M. Partner-delivered reflexology: effects on cancer pain and anxiety. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007;34:127–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martire LM, Lustig AP, Schulz R, Miller GE, Helgeson VS. Is it beneficial to involve a family member? A meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for chronic illness. Health Psychol. 2004;23:599–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hartmann M, Bazner E, Wild B, Eisler I, Herzog W. Effects of interventions involving the family in the treatment of adult patients with chronic physical diseases: a meta-analysis. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:136–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan M. Griffin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laura A. Meis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roderick MacDonald
    • 1
  • Nancy Greer
    • 1
  • Agnes Jensen
    • 1
  • Indulis Rutks
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Wilt
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes ResearchMinneapolis VA Health Care SystemMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Minneapolis VA Medical Center Section of General MedicineMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations