Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBiswas, Sanchia
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-03T14:45:18Z
dc.date.available2022-02-03T14:45:18Z
dc.date.issued2021-08
dc.identifier.citationMcCabe-White L, Moghaddam N, Tickle A, Biswas S. Factors associated with psychological distress for couples facing head and neck cancer: A systematic literature review. Psychooncology. 2021 Aug;30(8):1209-1219en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1002/pon.5686
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/15157
dc.description.abstractObjectives: Cancer patients in supportive relationships display improved health and survival outcomes. Identifying factors that might respond to intervention for Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) dyads is important as HNC patients and their partners experience heightened distress. This article systematically reviewed and evaluated the research findings and methodological quality of studies which identified factors influencing psychological distress for couples facing HNC. Methods: PsycINFO, Medline, and CINAHL were searched. Studies were included if they used validated psychological distress measures and quantitative data collection methods. Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria. Results: Studies identified factors associated with the psychological distress experienced by couples facing HNC, with substantial effect size variation. These factors included clinical, sociodemographic, relational, and psychological variables. Factors associated with increased psychological distress included disease burden, reduced social contact, perception of reduced relationship quality, and less adaptive/assimilative coping although the effect sizes displayed considerable heterogeneity. Overall, studies possessed good methodological quality but generally could have been improved by minimising the risk of non-response bias and fully reporting relational characteristics. Conclusions: The implications of these results for clinical practice and future research are discussed. Further research is recommended to report effect sizes more consistently for both dyad members to gain greater insight into couple-level distress and to perform moderator analyses to identify which variables influence the magnitude of psychological distress.
dc.subjectPsycho-Oncologyen_US
dc.subjectAnxietyen_US
dc.subjectCanceren_US
dc.subjectCoupleen_US
dc.subjectDepressionen_US
dc.subjectDyaden_US
dc.subjectHead and neck canceren_US
dc.subjectPartneren_US
dc.subjectPsychological distressen_US
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_US
dc.titleFactors associated with psychological distress for couples facing head and neck cancer: A systematic literature reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.dateFOA2022-10-03T12:58:19Z
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2021-05
html.description.abstractObjectives: Cancer patients in supportive relationships display improved health and survival outcomes. Identifying factors that might respond to intervention for Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) dyads is important as HNC patients and their partners experience heightened distress. This article systematically reviewed and evaluated the research findings and methodological quality of studies which identified factors influencing psychological distress for couples facing HNC. Methods: PsycINFO, Medline, and CINAHL were searched. Studies were included if they used validated psychological distress measures and quantitative data collection methods. Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria. Results: Studies identified factors associated with the psychological distress experienced by couples facing HNC, with substantial effect size variation. These factors included clinical, sociodemographic, relational, and psychological variables. Factors associated with increased psychological distress included disease burden, reduced social contact, perception of reduced relationship quality, and less adaptive/assimilative coping although the effect sizes displayed considerable heterogeneity. Overall, studies possessed good methodological quality but generally could have been improved by minimising the risk of non-response bias and fully reporting relational characteristics. Conclusions: The implications of these results for clinical practice and future research are discussed. Further research is recommended to report effect sizes more consistently for both dyad members to gain greater insight into couple-level distress and to perform moderator analyses to identify which variables influence the magnitude of psychological distress.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
McCabe-White et al 2021 1209-1 ...
Size:
456.9Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record