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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saab, Mohamad M., McCarthy, Megan, Murphy, Mike, Medved, Katarina, O’Malley, Maria, Bambury, Richard M., Gleeson, Jack P., Noonan, Brendan
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