Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29310613›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2018

Efficacy of a telephone outcall program to reduce caregiver burden among caregivers of cancer patients [PROTECT]: a randomised controlled trial.

Leila Heckel, Kate M Fennell, John Reynolds, Anna Boltong, Mari Botti, Richard H Osborne, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Jacquie Chirgwin, Melinda Williams, Cadeyrn J Gaskin and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions Addressing Health Literacy in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review of Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Health literacy in cancer caregivers: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Are cancer helplines effective in supporting caregivers? A systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Association between dyadic interventions and outcomes in cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. A telephone outcall program to support caregivers of people diagnosed with cancer: utility, changes in levels of distress, and unmet needs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Trial
  16. Non-pharmacological interventions for informal cancer caregivers: a JBI scoping review and gap analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Palliative medicine · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Leila HeckelDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. l.heckel@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9138-1034
Kate M FennellCancer Council SA, 202 Greenhill Road, East wood, South Australia, 5063, Australia.
John ReynoldsMonash University, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Anna BoltongCancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Mari BottiDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Richard H OsborneDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Cathrine MihalopoulosDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Jacquie ChirgwinEastern Health, Department of Oncology, Box Hill, VIC, 3128, Australia.
Melinda WilliamsBarwon South Western Regional Integrated Cancer Service, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Cadeyrn J GaskinDeakin University, Faculty of Health, Biostatistics Unit, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
David M AshleyDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Patricia M LivingstonDeakin University, Faculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1044400RM24525
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformal caregivers provide extended support to people with cancer but they receive little support from the health care system to assist them in their caring role. The aim of this single-blind, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial was to test the efficacy of a telephone outcall program to reduce caregiver burden and unmet needs, and improve psychological well-being among cancer caregivers, as well as evaluating the potential impact on patient outcomes.

methodsCancer patient/caregiver dyads (N = 216) were randomised to a telephone outcall program (n = 108) or attention control group (n = 108). The primary outcome was self-reported caregiver burden. Secondary endpoints included depressive symptoms, unmet needs, self-esteem, self-empowerment, and health literacy. Data were collected at baseline and at both 1 and 6 months post-intervention. An intention to treat analysis was performed.

resultsThe intervention had no effect on the primary outcome (caregiver burden), but reduced the number of caregiver unmet needs (intervention group baseline, mean = 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.91-3.54]; intervention group 1 month post intervention, mean = 0.85, 95%CI [0.42-1.44]; control group baseline, mean = 1.30 95%CI [0.80-1.94], control group 1 month post intervention, mean = 1.02 95%CI [0.52-1.69]; p = 0.023). For caregivers at risk for depression, the intervention had a significant effect on caregivers' confidence in having sufficient information to manage their health (p = 0.040). No effects were found for patients' depressive symptoms, unmet needs, self-empowerment, and other health literacy domains.

conclusionsWhile caregiver burden was not reduced, the outcall program was effective in reducing unmet needs in caregivers. Provision of cancer information and support via a telephone service may represent a feasible approach to reducing unmet needs among cancer caregiver populations.

trial registrationACTRN12613000731796 ; prospectively registered on 02/07/2013.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalAdultAgedCaregiversDepressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQuality of LifeSingle-Blind MethodTelephoneCancerCaregiver burdenCaregiversDepressionHealth literacyHelplineRCTSupportTelephone interventionUnmet needs

Identifiers

PMID29310613
PMCPMC5759190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.