Acceptability of Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adults: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: Mental ill-health presents a major public health problem. A potential part solution that is receiving increasing attention is computer-delivered psychological therapy, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic as health care systems moved to remote service delivery. However, computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (cCBT) requires active engagement by service users, and low adherence may minimize treatment effectiveness. Therefore, it is important to investigate the acceptability of cCBT to understand implementation issues and maximize potential benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to produce a critical appraisal of published reviews about the acceptability of cCBT for adults. METHODS: An umbrella review informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology identified systematic reviews about the acceptability of cCBT for common adult mental disorders. Acceptability was operationalized in terms of uptake of, dropping out from, or completion of cCBT treatment; factors that facilitated or impeded adherence; and reports about user, carer, and health care professional experience and satisfaction with cCBT. Databases were searched using search terms informed by relevant published research. Review selection and quality appraisal were guided by the JBI methodology and the AMSTAR tool and undertaken independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: The systematic searches of databases identified 234 titles, and 9 reviews (covering 151 unique studies) met the criteria. Most studies were comprised of service users with depression, anxiety, or specifically, panic disorder or phobia. Operationalization of acceptability varied across reviews, thereby making it difficult to synthesize results. There was a similar number of guided and unguided cCBT programs; 34% of guided and 36% of unguided users dropped out; and guidance included email, telephone, face-to-face, and discussion forum support. Guided cCBT was completed in full by 8%-74% of the participants, while 94% completed one module and 67%-84% completed some modules. Unguided cCBT was completed in full by 16%-66% of participants, while 95% completed one module and 54%-93% completed some modules. Guided cCBT appeared to be associated with adherence (sustained via telephone). A preference for face-to-face CBT compared to cCBT (particularly for users who reported feeling isolated), internet or computerized delivery problems, negative perceptions about cCBT, low motivation, too busy or not having enough time, and personal circumstances were stated as reasons for dropping out. Yet, some users favored the anonymous nature of cCBT, and the capacity to undertake cCBT in one's own time was deemed beneficial but also led to avoidance of cCBT. There was inconclusive evidence for an association between sociodemographic variables, mental health status, and cCBT adherence or dropping out. Users tended to be satisfied with cCBT, reported improvements in mental health, and recommended cCBT. Overall, the results indicated that service users' preferences were important considerations regarding the use of cCBT. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicated that "one size did not fit all" regarding the acceptability of cCBT and that individual tailoring of cCBT is required in order to increase population reach, uptake, and adherence and therefore, deliver treatment benefits and improve mental health.

Psychosocial support interventions for cancer caregivers: reducing caregiver burden.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Informal caregivers of individuals affected by cancer undertake a range of activities and responsibilities throughout the course of the cancer care trajectory. This role is often undertaken alongside employment and other caring roles and can contribute to caregiver burden, which may be ameliorated through psychosocial intervention. RECENT FINDINGS: Fifteen new studies investigating the potential of psychosocial interventions for reducing caregiver burden were identified from the period January 2019 to February 2020. Studies were mostly quasi-experimental or randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Psychoeducation was the main intervention identified, though content varied, psychoeducation was associated with improvements in burden, quality of life (QoL) domains and psychological symptoms for caregivers. A small number of counselling/therapeutic interventions suggest that caregivers supporting patients with advanced cancer or cancers with high symptom burden may experience reduced psychological symptoms and QoL benefits. There was a paucity of evidence for other psychosocial interventions (e.g. mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy) and methodological quality was variable across all intervention types. SUMMARY: Psychosocial interventions may help to reduce burden for informal caregivers of individuals affected by cancer, though there remains a need for rigorously designed, multicentred RCTs and to examine the long-term impact of psychosocial interventions for caregivers.

Psychosocial interventions for informal caregivers of people living with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, cancer is recognised as a chronic condition with a growing population of informal caregivers providing care for cancer patients. Informal caregiving can negatively affect the health and well-being of caregivers. We need a synthesised account of best evidence to aid decision-making about effective ways to support caregivers for individuals 'living with cancer'. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions designed to improve the quality of life (QoL), physical health and well-being of informal caregivers of people living with cancer compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Open SIGLE, Web of Science from inception up to January 2018, trial registries and citation lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions delivered to adult informal caregivers of adults affected by cancer on a group or individual basis with usual care. Psychosocial interventions included non-pharmacological interventions that involved an interpersonal relationship between caregivers and healthcare professionals. We included interventions delivered also to caregiver-patient dyads. Interventions delivered to caregivers of individuals receiving palliative or inpatient care were excluded. Our primary outcome was caregiver QoL. Secondary outcomes included patient QoL, caregiver and patient depression, anxiety, psychological distress, physical health status and intervention satisfaction and adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments. We synthesised findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and reported remaining results in a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials (n = 3, 725) were included in the review. All trials were reported in English and were undertaken in high-income countries. Trials targeted caregivers of patients affected by a number of cancers spanning newly diagnosed patients, patients awaiting treatment, patients who were being treated currently and individuals post-treatment. Most trials delivered interventions to caregiver-patient dyads (predominantly spousal dyads) and there was variation in intervention delivery to groups or individual participants. There was much heterogeneity across interventions though the majority were defined as psycho-educational. All trials were rated as being at 'high risk of bias'.Compared to usual care, psychosocial interventions may improve slightly caregiver QoL immediately post intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.53; studies = 2, 265 participants) and may have little to no effect on caregiver QoL at 12 months (SMD 0.14, 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.40; studies = 2, 239 participants) post-intervention (both low-quality evidence).Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on caregiver depression immediately to one-month post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.15; studies = 9, 702 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on caregiver anxiety immediately post-intervention (SMD -0.12, 95 % CI -0.33 to 0.10; studies = 5, 329 participants), depression three-to-six months (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38; studies = 5. 379 participants) post-intervention and patient QoL six to 12 months (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.26; studies = 3, 294 participants) post-intervention (all low-quality evidence). There was uncertainty whether psychosocial interventions improve patient QoL immediately (SMD -0.03, 95 %CI -0.50 to 0.44; studies = 2, 292 participants) or caregiver anxiety three-to-six months (SMD-0.25, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.13; studies = 4, 272 participants) post-intervention (both very low-quality evidence). Two studies which could not be pooled in a meta-analysis for caregiver physical health status found little to no effect immediately post-intervention and a small intervention effect 12 months post-intervention. Caregiver or patient satisfaction or cost-effectiveness of interventions were not assessed in any studies. Interventions demonstrated good feasibility and acceptability.Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on patient physical health status immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.17, 95 % CI -0.07 to 0.41; studies = 4, 461 participants) and patient depression three to six months post-intervention (SMD-0.11, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.12; studies = 6, 534 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence).Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on caregiver psychological distress immediately to one-month (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.26; studies = 3, 134 participants), and seven to 12 months (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.58; studies = 2, 62 participants) post-intervention; patient depression immediately (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; studies = 9, 852 participants); anxiety immediately (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.15;studies = 4, 422 participants), and three to six months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.02; studies = 4, 370 participants); psychological distress immediately (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.44; studies = 2, 74 participants) and seven to 12 months (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.24; studies = 2, 61 participants); and physical health status six to 12 months (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.30; studies = 2, 275 participants) post-intervention (all low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse effects associated with the interventions, compared with usual care, including higher distress, sexual function-related distress and lower relationship satisfaction levels for caregivers, higher distress levels for patients, and that some content was perceived as insensitive to some participants.Trials not able to be pooled in a meta-analysis did not tend to report effect size and it was difficult to discern intervention effectiveness. Variable intervention effects were reported for patient and caregiver outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for this population. There is an immediate need for rigorous trials with process evaluations and clearer, detailed intervention descriptions. Cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted alongside future trials.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I(2)= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I(2) = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I(2) = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I(2) = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.

The late effects of cancer and cancer treatment: a rapid review.

This paper aims to synthesize literature about the definition, prevalence, onset and treatments associated with late effects. A rapid review was conducted using Google Scholar to identify reviews related to the late effects of adult-onset cancers. Papers were included if they provided a definition of late effects and/or presented a review of late effects as a result of adult-onset cancers in patients aged 18 years or older. Reviews related to nonmelanoma skin cancer were excluded. Reviews focusing on late effects in survivors of childhood-onset cancers (younger than 18 years) were ineligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 16 reviews were identified. Between 0% and 100% of survivors experienced a range of physical, psychological and social late effects. The onset of physical late effects was defined broadly as 'months or years' after treatment, whereas psychological late effects were defined as occurring at the end of treatment or similarly to physical late effects as 'months or years' after treatment. Few reviews provided an operational definition of late effects, and the onset of late effects was not often reported. Thus, reviews may have included the acute and long-term effects of cancer treatment. Evidence regarding causes, prevalence, and onset was incomplete for many late effects. Understanding the cause and onset of late effects is important in order to provide timely interventions to reduce the risk of late effect development in cancer patients.