Non-pharmacological interventions to manage psychological distress in patients living with cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is common in patients with cancer; interfering with physical and psychological wellbeing, and hindering management of physical symptoms. Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related psychological distress, at all stages of the disease. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311729). Searches were made using eight online databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on outcome measures, modes of delivery, resources and evidence of efficacy. A meta-analysis was planned if data allowed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies with 17,628 participants were included. One third of studies included mindfulness, talking or group therapies. Half of all studies reported statistically significant improvements in distress. Statistically significant intervention effects on distress were most prevalent for mindfulness techniques. Four of these mindfulness studies had moderate effect sizes (d = -0.71[95% CI: -1.04, -0.37] p < 0.001) (d = -0.60 [95% CI: -3.44, -0.89] p < 0.001) (d = -0.77 [CI: -0.146, -1.954] p < 0.01) (d = -0.69 [CI: -0.18, -1.19] p = 0.008) and one had a large effect size (d = -1.03 [95% CI: -1.51, -0.54] p < 0.001). Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was variable and some had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies using a mindfulness intervention in this review are efficacious at alleviating distress. Mindfulness-including brief, self-administered interventions-merits further investigation, using adequately powered, high-quality studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022311729.

Evidence-based management approaches for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): A practice review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face limited treatment options and inadequate access to palliative care. AIM: To provide a pragmatic overview of clinical guidelines and produce evidence-based recommendations for severe COPD. Interventions for which there is inconsistent evidence to support their use and areas requiring further research were identified. DESIGN: Practice review of guidelines supported by scoping review methodology to examine the evidence reporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, complemented by web searching for guidelines and publications providing primary evidence (July 2021). Guidelines published within the last 5 years and evidence in the last 10 years were included. RESULTS: Severe COPD should be managed using a multidisciplinary approach with a holistic assessment. For stable patients, long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist and pulmonary rehabilitation are recommended. Low dose opioids, self-management, handheld fan and nutritional support may provide small benefits, whereas routine corticosteroids should be avoided. For COPD exacerbations, systematic corticosteroids, non-invasive ventilation and exacerbation action plans are recommended. Short-acting inhaled beta-agonists and antibiotics may be considered but pulmonary rehabilitation should be avoided during hospitalisation. Long term oxygen therapy is only recommended for patients with chronic severe hypoxaemia. Short-acting anticholinergic inhalers, nebulised opioids, oral theophylline or telehealth are not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended interventions by guidelines are not always supported by high-quality evidence. Further research is required on efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, mucolytics, relaxation and breathing exercises.

Conceptualising effective symptom management in palliative care: a novel model derived from qualitative data.

BACKGROUND: Pain, breathlessness and fatigue are some of the most challenging symptoms to manage in patients with advanced disease. Specialist palliative care leads to better symptom management, but factors contributing to successful symptom management in this context have not been explored. Our aim was to understand what facilitates effective symptom management in specialist palliative care within UK hospices and investigate what barriers are experienced. METHODS: This was a grounded theory study using qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Participants were recruited from multidisciplinary specialist palliative care teams (doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, complementary therapists, social workers and chaplains) working in inpatient, outpatient and community services provided by five hospices in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: We present a novel qualitative data-derived model of effective symptom management in specialist palliative care. We describe a co-ordinated, multi-faceted, sequential approach involving a process of engagement, partnership, decision-making, and delivery. Interventions to manage symptoms are less effective in psychologically distressed patients. Our data highlights that families of patients have a key role in determining effectiveness of symptom management interventions A holistic approach by a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary team, including support to recognise and minimise psychological distress might facilitate more effective symptom management. Barriers to symptom management include team discordance and lack of understanding about symptom management by patient and families. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making between patients and professionals and co-ordination of care by a multi-disciplinary team are key components of effective symptom management. Actions to address psychological distress and evaluate the understanding and expectations of patients and their families would enable more effective symptom management. A more effective multi-disciplinary approach would be facilitated by discussion within teams about role competencies and boundaries.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue affects most patients living with advanced cancer and is a symptom that healthcare professionals can find difficult to manage. AIM: To provide healthcare professionals with a pragmatic overview of approaches to management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer that are commonly recommended by guidelines and to evaluate evidence underpinning them. DESIGN: Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting use of interventions recommended in management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. DATA SOURCES: National or international guidelines were examined if they described the management of fatigue in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 6 years (2015-2021) in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2011-December 2021) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'fatigue' in title, abstract or keywords. A PubMed search was also made. RESULTS: Evidence indicates physical exercise interventions are effective and patients may benefit from energy conservation tactics. Evidence does not support use of psychostimulants such as methylphenidate. Limited data were found on efficacy of corticosteroids, psychological interventions, nutritional intervention, sleep optimization or complementary therapies for management of fatigue in advanced cancer. CONCLUSION: We recommend regular assessment, review and acknowledgement of the impact of fatigue. Exercise and energy conservation should be considered. Pharmacological interventions are not endorsed as a routine approach. Many interventions currently recommended by guidelines are not supported by a robust evidence base and further research on their efficacy is required.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. DESIGN: A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. DATA SOURCES: National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. RESULTS: A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. CONCLUSION: Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.