Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41499203›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2026

Effectiveness of Positive Psychology Interventions for Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Su Ann Yeoh, Alice Bowie, Tim Windsor, Hayley Russell, Saravana Kumar, Lisa Beatty

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

6 authors.

Su Ann YeohFlinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University Institute for Mental Health & Wellbeing, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4712-5718
Alice BowieFlinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University Institute for Mental Health & Wellbeing, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tim WindsorFlinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University Institute for Mental Health & Wellbeing, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Hayley RussellOvarian Cancer Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Saravana KumarInnovation, IMPlementation and Clinical Translation (IIMPACT in Health), Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lisa BeattyFlinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University Institute for Mental Health & Wellbeing, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8847-8452

Funding

Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions (PPIs) that are theoretically grounded and tailored to individuals across various stages and types of cancer.

methodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted across seven databases and supplementary sources, including Google and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were performed using standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) to assess the impact of PPIs on various psychological, physiological, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes. The methodological quality of included studies was appraised using the McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool, and the overall body of evidence was graded using the NHMRC FORM framework.

resultsEighteen studies involving 1382 participants were included. PPIs significantly improved psychological wellbeing domains such as post-traumatic growth, positive emotions, engagement, meaning, and positive relationships, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large (p < 0.05). Improvements were also observed in QOL and sexual functioning, though these outcomes were assessed in fewer studies. In contrast, limited or inconsistent effects were noted for accomplishment, psychological distress, physical functioning, and pain. High heterogeneity across studies highlighted variability in intervention designs and participant populations.

conclusionsPPIs hold promise as an integrative approach to psycho-oncology care in enhancing psychological wellbeing among cancer survivors. While their effects on psychological distress and specific concerns like sexual dysfunction warrant further research, PPIs represent a valuable framework for supporting the multifaceted needs of cancer survivors. Standardization of interventions and integration into multidisciplinary care models are recommended to maximize their clinical utility.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsPsychology, PositiveHumansQuality of Lifecancerinterventionsoncologypositive psychologypositive psychology interventionpsychological interventionspsychological wellbeingpsycho‐oncologypsychosocial

Identifiers

PMID41499203
PMCPMC12778308

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.