Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39514597›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Web-based interventions for fear of cancer recurrence: A scoping review with a focus on suggestions for the development and evaluation of future interventions.

Solveiga Zibaite, Sheela Tripathee, Helen Moffat, Beatrix Elsberger, Sara Maclennan

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

5 authors.

Solveiga ZibaiteDepartment of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-1610-0765
Sheela TripatheeAcademic Urology Unit, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Helen MoffatNHS Grampian, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill Site, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Beatrix ElsbergerNHS Grampian, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Breast Unit, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2864-5789
Sara MaclennanAcademic Urology Unit, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the available evidence on the effectiveness of web-based interventions for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and a discussion of drawbacks and possible improvements for web-based interventions identified in the reviewed studies. These steps fulfil the aim of this review, which is to offer suggestions for developing future web-based interventions based on the reviewed studies.

methodsFive databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science) were searched. Original peer-reviewed articles, written in English, on web-based interventions for FCR were included for review. The data from the included studies was synthesised thematically.

resultsWe included 34 papers reporting on 28 interventions. Most of the studies in the papers were quantitative and mixed quantitative studies with a qualitative element, e.g. an interview post-intervention. Interventions were most commonly trialled with women breast cancer patients. Top three countries where studies were conducted were USA, Australia and the Netherlands. The most common theoretical framework for interventions is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), followed by mindfulness-based and mixed CBT, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), relaxation approaches. FCR was the primary focus/measure in 19 Studies, in 9 studies FCR was a secondary/related outcome/measure. Overall, the evidence of efficacy of web-based interventions on FCR is mixed.

conclusionsThe existing research suggests several key points for producing more robust evidence about the effectiveness of web-based interventions for FCR. First, the studies suggest that it is a priority to better define eligibility criteria to proactively include people with higher levels of FCR. Second, there is a need for longer-term follow-up and outcome measuring period. Third, research examining the reasons for dropout from web-based interventions for FCR is critical to improve the effectiveness of web-based interventions. Fourth, while web-based interventions do not involve the costs of transportation, traveling time, space, equipment, cleaning, and other expenses, further cost utility analyses should be performed. Finally, future studies should assess how intervention accessibility, adherence, and effectiveness can be improved across different intervention designs, varying from intensive synchronous individual therapist-assisted web-based programme to blended designs combining the advantages of face-to-face and internet-based elements, to entirely self-managed programmes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Developing and evaluating more accessible FCR treatments have been identified among top international FCR research priorities (Shaw et al. 2021). While there is some evidence that web-based interventions can be as effective as face-to-face interventions, currently there is a dearth of systematic data about the ways in which the web-based modality specifically can enhance supportive care for FCR. Developing knowledge about effective web-based interventions has implications for cancer survivors as they can be presented with more accessible, low-cost and low-burden options for managing fear of cancer recurrence.

Indexed as

FearNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalCognitive Behavioral TherapyFemaleHumansInternetInternet-Based InterventionMindfulness

Identifiers

PMID39514597
PMCPMC11548736

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.