Supportive interventions to improve physiological and psychological health outcomes among patients undergoing cystectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of effective perioperative supportive interventions for patients undergoing cystectomy procedures and how these may affect short and long-term health outcomes is limited. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials involving any non-surgical, perioperative interventions designed to support or improve the patient experience for patients undergoing cystectomy procedures were reviewed. Comparison groups included those exposed to usual clinical care or standard procedure. Studies were excluded if they involved surgical procedure only, involved bowel preparation only or involved an alternative therapy such as aromatherapy. Any short and long-term outcomes reflecting the patient experience or related urological health outcomes were considered. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (representing 15 individual studies) were included for review. Heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes across studies meant meta-analyses were not possible. Participants were all patients with bladder cancer and interventions were delivered over different stages of the perioperative period. The overall quality of evidence and reporting was low and outcomes were predominantly measured in the short-term. However, the findings show potential for exercise therapy, pharmaceuticals, ERAS protocols, psychological/educational programmes, chewing gum and nutrition to benefit a broad range of physiological and psychological health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Supportive interventions to date have taken many different forms with a range of potentially meaningful physiological and psychological health outcomes for cystectomy patients. Questions remain as to what magnitude of short-term health improvements would lead to clinically relevant changes in the overall patient experience of surgery and long-term recovery.

Review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life in cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES: Over two million people in the UK are living with and beyond cancer. A third report diminished quality of life. DESIGN: A review of published systematic reviews to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched until May 2017 included PubMed, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people living with and beyond cancer were included; included reviews targeted patients aged over 18. All participants had already received a cancer diagnosis. Interventions located in any healthcare setting, home or online were included. Reviews of alternative therapies or those non-English reports were excluded. Two researchers independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full text of papers, and independently extracted the data. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of interest was any measure of global (overall) quality of life. ANALYTICAL METHODS: Quality assessment assessing methdological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and narrative synthesis, evaluating effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions and their components. RESULTS: Of 14 430 unique titles, 21 were included in the review of reviews. There was little overlap in the primary papers across these reviews. Thirteen reviews covered mixed tumour groups, seven focused on breast cancer and one focused on prostate cancer. Face-to-face interventions were often combined with online, telephone and paper-based reading materials. Interventions included physical, psychological or behavioural, multidimensional rehabilitation and online approaches. Yoga specifically, physical exercise more generally, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programmes showed benefit in terms of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-based interventions were effective in the short (less than 3-8 months) and long term. CBT and MBSR also showed benefits, especially in the short term. The evidence for multidisciplinary, online and educational interventions was equivocal.

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations.

BACKGROUND: Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched. DATA SOURCES: Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015). REVIEW METHODS: Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost-consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom. RESULTS: From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all of the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD -0.04 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW. LIMITATION: Difficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.