A systematic review and meta-analysis of written self-administered psychosocial interventions among adults with a physical illness |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Wilson Hall, 3506 University Street, Montreal, H3A 2A7, Canada;3. School of Psychology, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia;4. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, HMRI building, John Hunter Hospital Campus, New Lambton Heights, Australia;5. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;6. Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, USA;7. Mental Health Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia;8. St. Mary''s Research Centre;2. National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States;3. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Pressler Street, P.O. Box 301439, Unit Number: 1322, Houston, TX 77230-1439, United States;4. Evans Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, 801 Massachusetts Ave, Boston, MA 02118, United States;5. NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, United States;6. The University of Pittsburgh, 201 North Craig St., Suite 350, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States;7. Salt Lake City VA Center for Informatics Decision Enhancement and Surveillance (IDEAS);8. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah;1. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA;2. University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;3. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA;4. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA;5. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA;6. University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA;7. Institute for Professionalism & Ethical Practice, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;8. Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA;9. Institute for Health and Society, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA;10. Education Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA;11. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA;1. Department of Cariology, Endodontology Periodontology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;2. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany;1. MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, United States;2. MedStar Health Research Institute, United States;1. NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands;2. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands;3. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;4. Faculty of Health Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Drammen, Norway |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveThe cost of implementing professionally-led psychosocial interventions has limited their integration into routine care. To enhance the translation of effective psychosocial interventions in routine care, a self-administered format is sometimes used. The meta-analysis examined the efficacy of written self-administered, psychosocial interventions to improve outcomes among individuals with a physical illness.MethodsStudies comparing a written self-administered intervention to a control group were identified through electronic databases searching. Pooled effect sizes were calculated across follow-up time points using random-effects models. Studies were also categorised according to three levels of guidance (self-administered, minimal contact, or guided) to examine the effect of this variable on outcomes.ResultsForty manuscripts were retained for the descriptive review and 28 for the meta-analysis. Findings were significant for anxiety, depression, distress, and self-efficacy. Results were not significant for quality of life and related domains as well as coping. Purely self-administered interventions were efficacious for depression, distress, and self-efficacy; only guided interventions had an impact on anxiety.ConclusionsFindings showed that written self-administered interventions show promise across a number of outcomes.Practice implicationsSelf-administered interventions are a potentially efficacious and cost-effective approach to address some of the most common needs of patients with a physical illness. |
| |
| Keywords: | Self-help Anxiety Depression Chronic disease self-management Meta-analysis Knowledge translation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
