Cargando…
Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review
PURPOSE: To identify supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers. METHODS: Experimental studies conducted among men with any urological cancer were eligible for inclusion. Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Social Sciences...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37603072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07984-0 |
_version_ | 1785093557604843520 |
---|---|
author | Saab, Mohamad M. McCarthy, Megan Murphy, Mike Medved, Katarina O’Malley, Maria Bambury, Richard M. Gleeson, Jack P. Noonan, Brendan |
author_facet | Saab, Mohamad M. McCarthy, Megan Murphy, Mike Medved, Katarina O’Malley, Maria Bambury, Richard M. Gleeson, Jack P. Noonan, Brendan |
author_sort | Saab, Mohamad M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To identify supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers. METHODS: Experimental studies conducted among men with any urological cancer were eligible for inclusion. Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson), SocINDEX with Full Text, ERIC, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 6 December 2022. No database limits were applied. The included studies were methodologically appraised. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included with 10 categories of interventions identified. Over 300 outcomes were measured, and more than 100 instruments were used. Multicomponent interventions generally led to positive changes in physiological outcomes like body mass index, as well as exercise tolerance and quality of life. This change, however, was not sustained in the long term. Cognitive-behavioural interventions significantly improved psychological symptoms but seldom physical symptoms. Telephone and web-based interventions showed great promise in improving outcomes like depression, positive affect, negative affect, perceived stress, spiritual wellbeing and fatigue. Findings from physical activity/exercise-based interventions were promising for both, physical and psychological outcomes. Rehabilitative interventions were associated with significant improvements in quality of life, urinary symptoms and psychological symptoms, albeit in the short term. Mixed results were reported for nurse-led interventions, family-based interventions and nutritional interventions. CONCLUSION: All but one study focused exclusively on prostate cancer. The included studies were significantly heterogeneous. Multicomponent, cognitive-behavioural, telephone and web-based, physical activity/exercise-based and rehabilitative interventions showed great promise in improving various outcomes. This improvement, however, was often short-lived. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-07984-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10442278 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104422782023-08-23 Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review Saab, Mohamad M. McCarthy, Megan Murphy, Mike Medved, Katarina O’Malley, Maria Bambury, Richard M. Gleeson, Jack P. Noonan, Brendan Support Care Cancer Review PURPOSE: To identify supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers. METHODS: Experimental studies conducted among men with any urological cancer were eligible for inclusion. Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson), SocINDEX with Full Text, ERIC, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 6 December 2022. No database limits were applied. The included studies were methodologically appraised. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included with 10 categories of interventions identified. Over 300 outcomes were measured, and more than 100 instruments were used. Multicomponent interventions generally led to positive changes in physiological outcomes like body mass index, as well as exercise tolerance and quality of life. This change, however, was not sustained in the long term. Cognitive-behavioural interventions significantly improved psychological symptoms but seldom physical symptoms. Telephone and web-based interventions showed great promise in improving outcomes like depression, positive affect, negative affect, perceived stress, spiritual wellbeing and fatigue. Findings from physical activity/exercise-based interventions were promising for both, physical and psychological outcomes. Rehabilitative interventions were associated with significant improvements in quality of life, urinary symptoms and psychological symptoms, albeit in the short term. Mixed results were reported for nurse-led interventions, family-based interventions and nutritional interventions. CONCLUSION: All but one study focused exclusively on prostate cancer. The included studies were significantly heterogeneous. Multicomponent, cognitive-behavioural, telephone and web-based, physical activity/exercise-based and rehabilitative interventions showed great promise in improving various outcomes. This improvement, however, was often short-lived. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-07984-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-08-21 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10442278/ /pubmed/37603072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07984-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Saab, Mohamad M. McCarthy, Megan Murphy, Mike Medved, Katarina O’Malley, Maria Bambury, Richard M. Gleeson, Jack P. Noonan, Brendan Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
title | Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
title_full | Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
title_short | Supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
title_sort | supportive care interventions for men with urological cancers: a scoping review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37603072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07984-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT saabmohamadm supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT mccarthymegan supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT murphymike supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT medvedkatarina supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT omalleymaria supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT bamburyrichardm supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT gleesonjackp supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview AT noonanbrendan supportivecareinterventionsformenwithurologicalcancersascopingreview |