Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39830844›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

The novel manualized RELIEVE-group treatment for burdened relatives of cancer patients: a feasibility study.

Jessica Neumann, Jil Beckord, Helen Samira Hesse, Carl Martin, Carlotta Mons, Diana Chur, Jörg Hense, Mitra Tewes, Martin Teufel, Eva-Maria Skoda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Jessica NeumannClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jil BeckordClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Helen Samira HesseClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Carl MartinClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Carlotta MonsClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Diana ChurClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jörg HenseWest German Cancer Center, Department of Medical Oncology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Mitra TewesWest German Cancer Center, Department of Palliative Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Martin TeufelClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Eva-Maria SkodaClinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Duisburg-Essen, LVR-University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The experience of cancer among relatives is characterized by an increase in anxiety and depression, stress, and a reduction in quality of life. However, there is a paucity of psychosocial support programmes for relatives and a dearth of evidence-based, manualized interventions. Accordingly, the present study aims to assess the acceptability, defined as participant drop-out and satisfaction, and feasibility, in terms of mental health improvement, of a novel manualized psycho-educational group intervention. Methods: The manual was developed on the basis of previous research into psychotherapy. A total of 33 relatives of cancer patients were recruited from the West German Tumor Center and participated in the five modules of the RELIEVE treatment which included an introduction, communication skills, stress and anxiety management and self-care. The primary outcome was assessed using a range of measures, including anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-8), stress (PSQ), self-efficacy (SES), need for support (SCNSP&C-G), and quality of life (WGOQOL-BREF) before and after the completion of the treatment programme. A paired samples T-test was employed to assess the feasibility of the treatment, with pre- and post-scores being compared. The secondary outcome of treatment acceptance was evaluated by calculating the drop-out rate and scoring a treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Results: A high level of satisfaction was reported by participants. The drop-out rate for the treatment was minimal, at only 2.86%. Following the completion of the treatment programme, there were significant improvements in anxiety, depression and stress scores, as well as an improvement in quality of life. No significant improvements were observed in self-efficacy, work and social security needs, and quality of life in the social relationships domain. Discussion: The RELIEVE intervention demonstrated high feasibility and acceptance among emotionally affected relatives of cancer patients, addressing a gap in previous interventions that were often limited in scope and lacked standardised manuals. Conclusion: This feasibility study on treatment acceptance underlines the importance of measures that are tailored to the specific needs of cancer patients' relatives, and of integrating them into the general healthcare system.

Indexed as

anxietycancerdepressiondistressfeasibilityrelativestreatment

Identifiers

PMID39830844
PMCPMC11739325

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.