Trial reportCancer2025
A pragmatic randomized controlled pilot trial of brief meaning-centered psychotherapy in home care.
Trial report in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adjunctive individual meaning-centered psychotherapy plus protocolized fluoxetine for moderate-to-severe adolescent depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals with advanced cancer receiving home health care experience elevated psychosocial and existential distress, yet few interventions address these concerns. This pilot randomized controlled trial examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of brief, nurse-delivered, meaning-centered psychotherapy in patients with advanced cancer compared with treatment as usual (TAU).
methodsDistressed patients (aged 18 years and older) were randomized 1:1 to receive either a three-session Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Hospitals, Hospice, and Home (MCP-H; n = 33) or TAU (n = 32). Feasibility was based on recruitment, retention, data completion, fidelity, and intervention engagement. Acceptability was based on patients' and nurses' ratings of MCP-H satisfaction. Preliminary efficacy was determined by changes in scores from baseline (T1) to 6 weeks (T2) and 10 weeks (T3) in meaning, and secondary outcomes were assessed using between-group analysis.
resultsSeventy-one patients enrolled. Feasibility was demonstrated by satisfactory recruitment (75% approach-to-consent rate; 92% enroll-to-randomize rate), retention (74% and 75% at T2 and T3, respectively), intervention engagement (94% completed 100% of the sessions), and treatment adherence (87% mean rating). Participants endorsed the intervention's acceptability (96% satisfied or very satisfied). MCP-H participants experienced improvements in meaning using the Cohen's d (d = 0.59 at T2; d = 0.39 at T3) and most other secondary psychosocial outcomes at 6 and 10 weeks compared with TAU participants.
conclusionsMCP-H is feasible and acceptable among patients with advanced cancer in home care. This intervention demonstrated promising evidence of clinical efficacy. A larger, fully powered randomized controlled trial is needed to test the efficacy of the intervention for patients, nurses, and health system outcomes against an active control group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.