Psychoeducation for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Hari Setyowibowo,
Whisnu Yudiana,
Joke A.M. Hunfeld,
Aulia Iskandarsyah,
Jan Passchier,
Homra Arzomand,
Sawitri S. Sadarjoen,
Ralph de Vries,
Marit Sijbrandij
Affiliations
Hari Setyowibowo
Department of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology and Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Educational Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Indonesia; Corresponding author. Department of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology and Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
Whisnu Yudiana
Department of Experimental Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Indonesia
Joke A.M. Hunfeld
Department of Psychiatry, Section Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Aulia Iskandarsyah
Department of Clinical Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Indonesia
Jan Passchier
Department of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology and Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Homra Arzomand
Department of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology and Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Sawitri S. Sadarjoen
Department of Clinical Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor, Indonesia
Ralph de Vries
Medical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Marit Sijbrandij
Department of Clinical, Neuro, and Developmental Psychology and Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands; World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Dissemination of Psychological Interventions, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Background: Psychoeducation has emerged as an intervention for women with breast cancer (BC). This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of psychoeducation on adherence to diagnostic procedures and medical treatment, anxiety, depression, quality of life (QoL), and BC knowledge among patients with BC symptoms or diagnosis and BC survivors. Methods: A systematic literature search (in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of psychoeducation to control among patients with BC symptoms or diagnosis and BC survivors. Effects were expressed as relative risks (RRs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with their 95% confidence intervals. Results: Twenty-seven RCTs (7742 participants; 3880 psychoeducation and 3862 controls) were included. Compared with controls, psychoeducation had no significant effect on adherence to diagnostic procedures and medical treatment (RR 1.553; 95% CI 0.733 to 3.290, p = .16), but it significantly decreased anxiety (SMD -0.710, 95% CI -1.395 to −0.027, p = .04) and improved QoL with (SMD 0.509; 95% CI 0.096 to 0.923, p < .01). No effects were found for psychoeducation on depression (SMD -0.243, 95% CI -0.580 to 0.091, p = .14), or BC knowledge (SMD 0.718, 95% CI -0.800 to 2.236, p = .23). Conclusion: We demonstrated that psychoeducation did not improve adherence to diagnostic procedures and treatment, depression and BC knowledge but was valuable for reducing anxiety and improving QoL. Future studies may explore the effectiveness of psychoeducation in promoting adherence across various types of cancer.
