Search

Aim: To determine the effectiveness of brief reminiscence‐based psychosocial interventions in alleviating psychological distress in cancer patients. Background: Cancer patients suffer tremendous psycho‐spiritual pain, which affects their quality of life. Brief reminiscence‐based psychosocial interventions have demonstrated positive effects on the mental health of cancer patients; however, the efficacy of these interventions has been inconsistent. Design: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods: This review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 checklist provided by the EQUATOR network. The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus databases were systematically searched from inception to 27 November 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. Results: Twenty studies involving 1744 cancer participants were included. The meta‐analysis showed statistically significant effects of brief reminiscence‐based psychosocial interventions on hope, anxiety and depression at post‐intervention. A separate analysis revealed that brief reminiscence‐based psychosocial interventions had a sustainable effect on hope, spiritual well‐being, anxiety and depression at 1 month after the intervention. However, no statistically significant effect on quality of life was found in our study either immediately after the intervention or at 1 month. Conclusions: Brief reminiscence‐based psychosocial interventions can significantly reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms and improve hope and spiritual well‐being in cancer patients. Relevance to Clinical Practice: This study further supports that brief reminiscence‐based psychosocial interventions should be incorporated into the routine care of cancer patients to address their psychosocial distress. Patient or Public Contribution: All authors of this article contributed to the study conception and design. All authors of the included studies provided original data for this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The clinical significance of cancer‐related stigma on patients' well‐being has been widely established. Stigma can be perceived and internalised by cancer patients or implemented by the general population and healthcare workers. Various interventions have been carried out to reduce cancer‐related stigma, but their effectiveness is not well‐understood. This review aims to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce cancer‐related stigma. Design: An integrative review. Methods: This integrative review combined both qualitative and quantitative studies and followed five steps to identify problems, search for the literature, appraise the literature quality, analyse data, and present data. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (version 2018) was applied to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Data Sources: Databases included Web of Science, MEDLINE, SpringerLink, Wiley Online Journals, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, OVID, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (from the inception of each database to 30 April 2021). Results: Eighteen quantitative, six qualitative, and five mixed‐methods studies were included in this review. Cultural factors should be considered when conducting interventions to reduce cancer‐related stigma. For cancer patients, multi‐component interventions have demonstrated a positive effect on their perceived stigma. For general population, interactive interventions show promise to reduce their implemented stigma towards cancer patients. For healthcare workers, there is a paucity of studies to reduce their implemented stigma. Existing studies reported inconclusive evidence, partially due to the lack of a robust study design with an adequate sample size. Conclusions: Multi‐component and interactive interventions show promise to relieve cancer‐related stigma. More methodologically robust studies should be conducted in different cultures to elucidate the most appropriate interventions for different populations to reduce cancer‐related stigma. Implication for the Profession and Patient Care: These findings will facilitate healthcare workers to design and implement interventions to reduce cancer‐related stigma, thus improving the quality of life for cancer patients. Patient and Public Contribution: No patient and public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caregivers of children with chronic diseases suffer from great parenting pressure, which directly affects the treatment and rehabilitation of children, reduces the quality of life of caregivers and damages family functioning. Existing reviews have not systematically summarized and evaluated interventions for parenting stress in caregivers of children with chronic diseases. Data Sources: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible reviews in November 2021 and October 2022. Methods: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts of articles for eligibility, and appraised the quality of reviews using JBI. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Findings are reported in accordance with PRISMA checklist. Narrative summaries grouped findings by intervention types. Results: Out of 2632 records, we included 21 systematic reviews for a synthesis. Interventions for parenting stress in children with chronic diseases were divided into seven categories. Cognitive behavioural interventions, psychosocial interventions, child behavioural and/or developmental parent interventions and synthesized interventions have shown high‐level evidence in reducing parenting stress for caregivers of children with chronic diseases. Furthermore, outcome measures and intervention protocols were highly heterogeneous across interventions. Conclusions: This umbrella review suggest that reducing the parenting stress of caregivers of children with chronic diseases can directly target caregivers' parenting stress through cognitive behavioural interventions/psychosocial interventions and/or provide guidance to parents on the behavioural and developmental problems of children with chronic diseases. A more standardized approach to outcome measures is essential to assess efficacy and compare interventions across studies. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The findings provide information and evidence for reducing parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic diseases to guide the development of comprehensive intervention strategies. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient or public contribution does not apply to this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aims of the study were to explore the experiences of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and their partners and examine the factors influencing partner involvement in GDM management, seeking to inform a targeted couple‐based intervention. Design: A descriptive qualitative study. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 14 women with GDM and their partners. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from a tertiary hospital in Xi'an, China. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes and 12 subthemes were identified. Theme I: Women's expectations of their partner's involvement in GDM management—practical support and emotional support. Theme II: Partner involvement in GDM management—constructive involvement, unhelpful involvement with good intentions and insufficient involvement. Theme III: Factors that influence partner involvement in GDM—knowledge of GDM, GDM risk perception, health consciousness, attitudes towards the treatment plan, couple communication regarding GDM management, family roles and appraisal of GDM management responsibility. Conclusion: Women desired practical and emotional support from partners. The types of partner involvement in GDM management varied. Some partners provided constructive support, while some partners' involvement was limited, non‐existent or actively unhelpful. By combining these results with the factors influencing partner involvement, our findings may help healthcare professionals develop strategies to involve partners in GDM care and enhance women's ability to manage GDM. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: Partner involvement in GDM care may help them understand and better attend to women's needs, thus improving their experience and potential outcomes. This study highlights novel factors that need to be considered in developing couple‐based interventions for this population. Reporting Method: The reporting follows the COREQ checklist. Patient or Public Contribution: Some patients were involved in data interpretation. There is no public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This scoping review aims to describe published work on the symptoms and management of long COVID conditions. Background: Symptoms and management of COVID‐19 have focused on the acute stage. However, long‐term consequences have also been observed. Methods: A scoping review was performed based on the framework suggested by Arksey and O'Malley. We conducted a literature search to retrieve articles published from May 2020 to March 2021 in CINHAL, Cochrane library, Embase, PubMed and Web of science, including backward and forward citation tracking from the included articles. Among the 1880 articles retrieved, 34 articles met our criteria for review: 21 were related to symptom presentation and 13 to the management of long COVID. Results: Long COVID symptoms were described in 21 articles. Following COVID‐19 treatment, hospitalised patients most frequently reported dyspnoea, followed by anosmia/ageusia, fatigue and cough, while non‐hospitalised patients commonly reported cough, followed by fever and myalgia/arthralgia. Thirteen studies described management for long COVID: Focused on a multidisciplinary approach in seven articles, pulmonary rehabilitation in three articles, fatigue management in two articles and psychological therapy in one study. Conclusion: People experience varied COVID‐19 symptoms after treatment. However, guidelines on evidence‐based, multidisciplinary management for long COVID conditions are limited in the literature. The COVID‐19 pandemic may extend due to virus mutations; therefore, it is crucial to develop and disseminate evidence‐based, multidisciplinary management guidelines. Relevance to clinical practice: A rehabilitation care plan and community healthcare plans are necessary for COVID‐19 patients before discharge. Remote programmes could facilitate the monitoring and screening of people with long COVID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]