Effectiveness of Family and Caregiver Interventions on Patient Outcomes in Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review
- 1k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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 WORDScancer systematic review caregivers patient outcomes
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.
- 1.American Association for Cancer Research. AACR Cancer Progress Report 2013. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(Supplement 1):S1–86.Google Scholar
- 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/.
- 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
- 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.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.Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.Google Scholar
- 12.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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