Content area
Abstract
Background: A diagnosis and treatment of gynecological cancer (GC) has adverse effects on the sexual functioning, quality of life and psychological outcomes of patients. Psychoeducational interventions (PEIs) are recommended for GC patients to improve their outcomes, but evidence for their effectiveness is far from conclusive.
Systematic review: A systematic review was first carried out according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach to identify the best available evidence relating to the effectiveness of PEIs for GC patients in sexual functioning, quality of life and psychological outcomes. A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 975 GC patients were included in the systematic review, but only four comparable studies were appropriate for meta-analysis. PEIs significantly improved depressive symptoms, standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.05 to -0.54], p = < .00001, among the patients. However, there was no significant benefit to the physical aspect of quality of life, SMD = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45 to 0.20], p = .46. Conversely, information-only therapy demonstrated significant effects on the mental aspects of quality of life, SMD = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.74 to -0.08], p = .01. In addition, from qualitative data, PEIs appeared to be helpful in improving sexual life, but changes in sexual functioning scores were not statistically significant. The interventions appeared to have only limited beneficial effect on anxiety, distress, adjustment to illness and uncertainty, and had no significant effect in improving mood, self-esteem or ability to cope. The review also suggested that PEIs for GC patients would incorporate information provision, behavior therapy and psychological support. The format might be individual, with or without a partner’s participation, or in a group. A nurse was found to be the ideal provider. The interventions could be arranged at the start of cancer treatment and then be continued after discharge, and the number of sessions might be four, each lasting between 30 minutes and one hour.
Aim of pilot study: A program of PEIs was designed based on the systematic review, and piloted on Hong Kong GC patients to test the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing the interventions in Hong Kong.
Pilot research plan: The pilot study was a single-blinded RCT and mix-method design. Twenty-six subjects were randomly assigned to either the intervention or attention control group. The intervention group received the program of PEIs, while the attention control group received attention from the researcher over the same period. Data collection was carried out at baseline (T0), after the operation and during the in-hospital period (T1) and eight weeks after the operation (T2). Qualitative data was collected from the intervention group and nurses working in the clinical setting at T2. Non-parametric tests were used to compare the baseline and various outcome variables within and between groups. Audio-tapes of semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim, and content analysis was performed to identify significant themes.
Key findings of pilot study: Participants in the intervention group had statistically significantly less inconsistent information on illness than the attention control group, but there were no statistically significant differences in all other outcome variables including sexual functioning, quality of life, uncertainty, social support, anxiety and depression. Qualitative data from the participants indicated the program of PEIs reduced their stress level and was useful.
Conclusion: The systematic review demonstrated evidence of the positive effects of PEIs on GC patients. Although there were no significant effects appearing in most quantitative results of the intervention program in the pilot study, the qualitative results indicated that the interventions were found desirable by Hong Kong GC patients. Nurses identified implementing the program as feasible in clinical settings.
