RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The search for risk factors of pain after breast cancer, which affects a considerable proportion of the women, has primarily focused on clinical factors. The aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the less well-studied psychosocial predictors of pain after breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Two independent searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Eligible studies were prospective, observational studies of women aged ≥18 years, diagnosed and treated for nonmetastatic breast cancer ≥3 months previously. Additional inclusion criteria were that studies had assessed at least one pain outcome and at least one psychosocial predictor. The psychosocial predictors investigated included: 1) psychological-behavioral states, 2) psychological traits, and 3) social support. Effect size correlations (ESr) were chosen as the effect size and pooled using a random effects model. We also explored a number of study characteristics as possible moderators of the effect with meta-regression. RESULTS: Of the total of 13 eligible studies identified, most studies measured psychosocial predictors at presurgery. Neither psychological-behavioral states (ESr: 0.05; p=0.13; K=11) nor psychological traits (ESr: 0.02; p=0.48; K=6) emerged as statistically significant predictors of pain. In contrast, higher levels of social support were statistically significantly associated with less pain (ESr: -0.24; p<0.001; K=4). In studies of psychological-behavioral states, longer follow-up was associated with smaller effect sizes (p=0.023). Furthermore, older mean sample age was associated with larger effect sizes for both psychological-behavioral states (p=0.0004) and psychological traits (p=0.035). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that psychosocial factors measured at presurgery may only be of modest predictive value in identifying women at risk of developing pain after breast cancer treatment. While speculative, psychosocial factors may play a larger role in the postsurgery trajectory, which could be valuable to investigate in future studies.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A number of studies have investigated the relationship between psychological factors such as stress and distress (measured as anxiety and depression) and outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The results, however, are inconsistent, and the strength of any associations remains to be clarified. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the results of studies reporting on the associations between stress, anxiety, and depression and ART outcomes. METHODS: Prospective studies reporting data on associations between stress or distress in female patients and ART outcome were identified and evaluated by two independent researchers according to an a priori developed codebook. Authors were contacted in cases of insufficient data reporting. Stress was defined as perceived stress, work-related stress, minor life events or major life events, and distress was defined as anxiety or depression. RESULTS: A total of 31 prospective studies were included. Small, statistically significant, pooled effect sizes were found for stress [ESr, effect size correlation) = -0.08; P = 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.15, -0.01], trait anxiety (ESr = -0.14; P = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.25, -0.03) and state anxiety (ESr = -0.10, P = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.01), indicating negative associations with clinical pregnancy rates. A non-significant trend (Esr = -0.11, P = 0.06) was found for an association between depression and clinical pregnancy. For serum pregnancy tests and live birth rates, associations between trait anxiety or state anxiety were not significant. The fail safe number did not exceed the suggested criterion in any analyses, between-study heterogeneity was considerable and the mean age, mean duration of infertility and percentage of first time ART attenders in the study samples were found to moderate several of the associations. CONCLUSIONS: Small but significant associations were found between stress and distress and reduced pregnancy chances with ART. However, there were a limited number of studies and considerable between-study heterogeneity. Taken together, the influence of stress and distress on ART outcome may appear somewhat limited.
