Search

Aims and Objective: To summarize evidence from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta‐analyses (MAs) regarding the impact of dyadic interventions delivered to both members of a cancer dyad, including a cancer patient and caregiver (e.g. family caregiver, intimate partner). Design: This overview of SRs was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews statement. Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wan Fang. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs and MAs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2. The quality of the included SRs/MAs was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: Eighteen SRs/MAs undertook quantitative synthesis to assess the impact of dyadic interventions on cancer dyads. Both the credibility of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures were below satisfactory standards. Prior SRs/MAs revealed several limitations such as lack of pre‐published protocols or research objectives, failure to report excluded studies and insufficient details on funding sources for individual studies. Conclusions: Dyadic interventions may prove advantageous for the physical health and dyadic adjustment of cancer dyads. Nevertheless, the reported results of dyadic interventions on the psychological health of patient–caregiver dyads affected by cancer are inconsistent. Thus, rigorous and comprehensive studies are requisite to establish reliable evidence for conclusive determinations. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The findings of this overview can guide healthcare practitioners when considering the use of dyadic interventions for cancer dyads. Moreover, these findings have the potential to enhance the integration of these approaches into clinical practice. Patient or Public Contribution: Our paper presents an overview of systematic reviews, and therefore, such specific details may not be relevant to our study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]