Effects of psychosocial interventions for caregivers of breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: The aim of this review was to determine whether the caregivers of breast cancer patients who undergo psychosocial interventions report improvements in quality of life (QOL), depression, and anxiety.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in the CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang databases from inception until March 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasiexperimental studies involving psychosocial interventions for caregivers of breast cancer patients were included. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist were used to assess the risk of bias.

Results: This systematic review included eight original studies involving 528 caregivers of breast cancer patients. According to the meta-analyses, psychosocial interventions contributed significantly to improvements in QOL (SMD = 1.00, 95% CI [0.47, 1.54], p < 0.01), depression (SMD = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.42], p < 0.01) and anxiety (SMD = -0.56, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.27], p < 0.01). Significant differences of psychosocial interventions on the QOL of caregivers were found in face-to-face and mixed-method psychosocial interventions (SMD = 0.97, 95% CI [0.19,1.75], p = 0.02; SMD = 1.45, 95% CI [0.86,2.05], p < 0.01) in the ≥3 months subgroup (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI [0.58,1.86], p < 0.01) but not in the spouses or partners subgroup (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.10,1.75], p = 0.08).

Conclusions: This systematic review revealed that breast cancer patients' caregivers who undergo psychosocial interventions report improvements in QOL and reduced levels of depression and anxiety. It is worthwhile to use face-to-face methods when psychosocial interventions are conducted for caregivers. Future studies should examine long-term psychosocial interventions for spouses or partners of breast cancer patients. However, because of the limited number of original studies and the low quality of some included studies, the results should be treated cautiously. To increase solid evidence in this field, higher quality, more original studies are needed.