Are digital health interventions valuable to support patients with cancer and caregivers? An umbrella review of web-based and app-based supportive care interventions.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies have expanded tremendously in the last two decades, creating an emerging research and clinical field. They are regarded as cost-effective, and their use in healthcare is prioritized by many countries. However, the constant evolution of these technologies has led to an abundance of related literature. Thus, we conducted an umbrella review to identify and characterize digital supportive care interventions for patients with cancer and their relatives. METHODS: A preregistered umbrella review was conducted (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022333110). Five databases were searched (Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library). To be considered, studies had to be systematic reviews or meta-analyses, be performed on pediatric or adult patients with cancer or survivors or their relatives, report results on web-based or app-based supportive care interventions, and measure psychological, functional, or behavioral variables or quality of life related to cancer. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. FINDINGS: Twenty eligible studies were identified. Most of the included studies reported results from adult patients with cancer. Globally, digital interventions were shown to be effective for physical activity in patients with cancer but had mixed results regarding emotional outcomes and quality of life. Additionally, a lack of methodological quality was noted for most of the included reviews. DISCUSSION: Digital supportive care interventions could be an effective tool in cancer care for some outcomes. Recommendations have been formulated for further research in this field using adapted methodologies for the development of digital health interventions.

Happy thus survivor? A systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between cancer survival and positive states, emotions, and traits.

OBJECTIVES: Traditionally, the literature investigating patient-reported outcomes in relation to cancer survival focused on negative factors such as distress. Meta-analyses in this field have provided a clear identification of negative affect that reduce cancer survival (e.g., depression). Nevertheless, positive psychological factors and especially positive affect might be equally crucial for cancer survival but have been neglected so far. While studies in this domain have been conducted, they remain less numerous and have produced mixed results. METHODS: A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (https://osf.io/jtw7x) aimed at identifying the positive affect linked to mortality in cancers were conducted. Four databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched to find longitudinal studies linking positive affect to survival in cancers. Two reviewers completed each stage of the study selection process, the data extraction, and the Quality in Prognosis Studies risk of bias assessments. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies involving 822,789 patients were included based on the 2462 references identified. The meta-analysis reveals that positive affect is associated with longer survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI [0.86, 0.96], z = -3.58, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (Odd Ratio [OR] = 0.59; 95% CI [0.45, 0.78], z = -3.70, p < 0.001). Sub-group analyses indicated that the main predictors of survival are emotional and physical well-being, optimism, and vitality. CONCLUSION: This work emphasizes the need to consider the role of affective mechanisms in patients with cancer, including their levels of well-being or optimism to provide the most favorable conditions for survival. Therefore, stronger and continuous effort to improve patients' positive affect could be particularly beneficial for their life expectancy.

The association of physician empathy with cancer patient outcomes: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In oncology, research remains unclear as to whether physician empathy is associated with patient outcomes. Our goal was to answer this question and explore potential moderators of the association. METHODS: In this meta-analysis on adult cancer care, we excluded randomised controlled trials, and studies of survivors without active disease or involving analogue patients. Eight databases were searched, in addition to reference lists of relevant articles and grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence by using the AXIS tool. Effect size correlations (ESr) were chosen and pooled by using a random effect model. Subgroup analyses were performed, and statistically significant variables were introduced in a meta-regression. Several methods were used to explore heterogeneity and publication biases. RESULTS: We included 55 articles, yielding 55 ESr (n = 12,976 patients). Physician empathy was associated with favourable patient outcomes: ESr = 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.18 to 0.27), z = 9.58, p < 0.001. However, heterogeneity was high, as reflected by a large prediction interval, 95% (-0.07 to 0.49) and I2 = 94.5%. The meta-regression explained 53% of variance. Prospective designs and physician empathy assessed by researchers, compared with patient-reported empathy, decreased ESr. Bad-news consultations, compared with all other types of clinical encounters, tended to increase ESr. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported physician empathy is significantly associated with cancer patient outcomes. However, the high heterogeneity warrants further longitudinal studies to disentangle the conditions under which physician empathy can help patients. Recommendations are proposed for future research.

The self-reported perceptions of the repercussions of the disease and its treatments on daily life for young women with breast cancer and their partners.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the self-reported perceptions of the repercussions of the disease and its treatments and emotional distress in young women with breast cancer and their partners. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using self-reported questionnaires. SAMPLE: 491 couples in which women were aged <45 years when diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer in four different groups of treatment: during chemotherapy with or without Trastuzumab; under Trastuzumab with or without hormone therapy; during hormone therapy; and during the follow-up period. METHODS: Patients and partners completed a questionnaire assessing their self-reported perceptions of the disease and treatments (Patient YW-BCI and Partner YW-BCI for the partners) and their emotional distress (CESD; STAI). FINDINGS: Patients reported more difficulties than partners in the management of child(ren) and everyday life, body image and sexuality, negative affectivity about the disease and apprehension about the future, career management, and finances. While the difficulties were generally more marked in the chemotherapy and Trastuzumab groups than in the hormone therapy and follow-up groups, the negative affectivity about the disease and apprehension about the future was high in all four groups, especially in patients. The partners reported more difficulties in sharing with close relatives, and even more in those groups reflecting the latest treatment phases. No difference appeared between patients and partners in couple cohesion and deterioration of relationships with relatives. Partners were less anxious than patients but as depressed as them. CONCLUSIONS: Difficulties of patients and partners seem particularly severe in the early care pathway, maybe reflecting better adjustment in women under surveillance and their partners. A longitudinal study will substantiate this finding and enable a better identification of some explanatory processes of these differences and similarities in the daily self-reported repercussions of the disease throughout the cancer care pathway. Implications for psychosocial oncology: It seems important to support young women with breast cancer and their partners, as our results evidence distress in both and differences according to the type of treatment the woman is currently receiving. Healthcare providers need consistent methods to identify and respond to couples' distress and reduce significant disparities in support.

Emotional distress and subjective impact of the disease in young women with breast cancer and their spouses.

AIM: Evaluate the influence of emotional distress of young women with breast cancer and their spouses on their daily subjective experience of the disease, through application of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 112 women under 45 years of age were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer and their spouses answered self-reported measures of anxiety, depression and subjective experience of the disease and its treatment. RESULTS: The patient's emotional distress influenced more the subjective experience of her spouse than the spouse's emotional distress influenced the patient. The spouse's difficulties depended as much on his own distress level as on the patient's distress level. CONCLUSION: These data confirm the importance of implementing couple-focused interventions.

Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

This study aimed to 1) compare the cancer screening practices of unaffected noncarrier women under 40 and those aged 40 to 49, following the age-based medical screening guidelines, and 2) consider the way the patients justified their practices of screening or over-screening. For this study, 131 unaffected noncarriers-77 women under age 40 and 54 between 40 and 49, all belonging to a BRCA1/2 family-responded to a questionnaire on breast or ovarian cancer screenings they had undergone since receiving their negative genetic test results, their motives for seeking these screenings, and their intentions to pursue these screenings in the future. Unaffected noncarriers under age 40 admitted practices that could be qualified as over-screening. Apart from mammogram and breast ultrasounds, which the women under 40 reported seeking less often, these women's screening practices were comparable to those of women between 40 and 49. Cancer prevention and a family history of cancer were the two most frequently cited justifications for pursuing these screenings. We suggest that health care professionals discuss with women under 50 the ineffectiveness of breast and ovarian cancer screenings so that they will adapt their practices to conform to medical guidelines and limit their exposure to the potentially negative impacts of early cancer screening.