Cancer Caregiver Quality of Life: Meta-Analysis

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-839937/v1

People living with cancer benefit greatly from informal caregivers. There has never been a previous meta-analysis on the quality of life of cancer caregivers or the efficacy of caregiver intervention programmes. The goal of this meta-analysis was to look at the quality of life of cancer caregivers and the impact of various initiatives aimed at improving it. From January 2006 to April 2021, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, PubMed Central, Clinical Key, Google Scholar and Cochrane database. The effect of caregiver interventional programs on quality of life was evaluated using a mean difference between experimental and control groups. A random-effect model was used to measure the risk ratio (RR) for calculating the quality of life of cancer caregivers. The final report comprised eight trials with a total of 1142 participants. The caregiver intervention programme was found to improve the quality of life of cancer caregivers, but not statistically significantly (mean difference=0.10; p<0.00001). A caregiver interventional program had a positive effect on the quality of life of cancer caregivers, according to this meta-analysis. To prove that caregiver interventional programs are successful strategies for improving the quality of life of cancer caregivers, further randomised controlled trials are required.

Cancer Biology

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Cancer

caregivers

quality of life

meta-analysis

Advancement in technology and improvement in cancer diagnosis and care have resulted in a growing number of cancer survivors as evident by data given by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) over 17.0 million new cancer cases and predictions of up to 27.5 million new cancer cases by 2040 globally.[1] By 2020, more than 19.3 million new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed.[2] Approximately 43.5 million informal caregivers globally and among them one in every four caregivers spending 41 hours/week providing care to an adult or child.[3]

Informal caregivers are often family members or friends who are responsible for caring for people who are suffering from a variety of ailments such as old age, dementia, or cancer.[4] These caregivers provide 70 to 80 percent of cancer treatment and are present with patient throughout the cancer care process from diagnosis till death.[5] Caring for someone with cancer can be highly taxing; 50% of cancer caregivers experience higher levels of stress and depression, [6] and 40% suggesting that they need assistance in handling their own emotional and physical stress.[7, 8]

Caregivers' burden is described as "the degree to which caregivers believe that caring for others has negatively impacted their emotional, social, financial, physical, and spiritual well-being."[9] Increased anxiety, depression, loneliness, lack of social support, helplessness, loss of control, and fear of recurrence are examples of psychosocial symptoms faced by all caregivers including cancer caregivers also. [10] Lack of exercise, poor sleep, exhaustion, weight gain or loss, all of which contribute to decreased immune system function, coronary heart disease, and early mortality, are some of the more behavioural and somatic issues. [11] Lifting and moving heavy loads cause’s musculoskeletal discomfort in caregivers in both older children and adult patients.[12] Thus all these affects overall quality of life (QOL) of caregivers.

Furthermore, studies on caregivers of mentally or physically ill patients found that caregivers' quality of life (QOL) had a significant effect on the QOL of the people they were caring for. [13–15] Burden on cancer caregivers will last for years after the patient's initial cancer diagnosis, with evidence of long-term health and QOL consequences. [16, 17] As a result, developing successful and realistic approaches to avoid and mitigate the psychological and physical stressors that minimise caregivers' QOL is critical. [18] The aim of this meta-analysis is to identify and compare cancer patient’s caregiver quality of life.

The analysis protocol was written by using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)-2020 [19] guideline to assess and compare quality of life of cancer caregivers. (Fig. 1)

Data sources and selection criteria

Online published research studies from PubMed, PubMed Central, Clinical Key, Google Scholar, and Cochrane from January 2010 and April 2021. The quest was limited to peer-reviewed publications, papers written in English and research concerning human subjects. The search strategy followed the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) format, P = Caregiver, I = Cancer, C = Patients, O = Quality of life. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used for population were “Caregiver”, “Family caregiver”, “Spouse”, “Partner”, with intervention were “Cancer”, “Oncology”, with control were “Patient”, “Cancer patient” and with outcome were “Quality of life”, “QOL” were used to search the literature.

Selection of study

Two reviewers (KKR and CVK) screened titles and abstracts separately to find published studies. The research design included reported randomized controlled trials conducted in English from January 2010 to April 2021. Caregivers who are providing care to adult cancer patients were included. Exclusion criteria included studies involving children cancer patients and studies with qualitative methodology were excluded.

Outcome measures

Both independent authors (KKR and CVK) looked at the primary outcomes of the studies that were included, such as study characteristics and participant profiles. The main goal is to evaluate the quality of life of cancer patients' caregivers.

Data extraction

Data was extracted from the selected studies by two separate authors (KKR and CVK). Any differences in inclusion eligibility were resolved through discussion among the authors. Following the selection of each study, the data was tabulated in the form of author name, publication year, study design, study population, study characteristics, source of data collection, research tools and statistical methods used. Any necessary clarifications were obtained by emailing the correspondence author.

Risk Bias and Quality Assessment

The probability of bias was assessed separately by the writers KKR and CVK. Cochrane risk of bias assessment guidelines by Higgins et al were used. [20] Selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting and other biases are included in the risk of bias graph and risk of bias overview for each selected RCT. (Figs. 2 & 3)

For each variable, all studies were categorised as low, high, or unclear risk. Any disagreements between the two independent authors were settled by consensus. The Chi-square test was used to evaluate heterogeneity using I² statistics of treatment effects among selected trials. Table 1 lists all of the data collected from the studies that were included.

Seven studies i.e. Fegg (2013) [21], Belgacem (2013) [22], Bahrami (2014) [23], Susan (2015) [24], Joanne (2015) [25], Virginia (2015) [26] and Lapid (2016) [27] had low risk of bias followed by one study i.e. Mabel (2015) [28] with moderate risk of bias.

Table 3

Characteristics of Included Studies (n = 8)
Author & Year	Exp Group/ Control Group	Exp Group/ Control Group Age (SD)	Exp Group/ Control Group Male & Female	Treatment Group	Research tool	Control Group	Setting
Fegg et al [21] (2013)	67/62	54.3 (13.5)/ 54.7 (12.9)	M-17 (28%), F- 50 (72%)/ M-19 (23%), F- 43 (67%)	EBT (Existential Behaviour Therapy) treatment for six sessions	WHOQOL-BREF i.e. WHO Quality of Life-BREF	Placebo	Germany
Belgacem et al [22] (2013)	33/34	56.6 (20.4)/ 62.5 (18.1)	M-40.6%, F- 59.4%/ M-42.4%,F-57.6 %	Caregiver Educational Program	SF36 Health Survey comprises 36 items score from 0 (worst quality of life) to 100 (highest quality of life)	Placebo	France
Bahrami and Farzi [23] (2014)	32/32	36.94 (11.3)/ 38.97 (10.2)	M-43.8%, F-56.2%/ M-28.1%, F-71.9 %	Supportive educational program based on COPE model	Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOL-C)	Placebo	Iran
Mabel Leow et al [28] (2015)	40/40	NA	NA	Caring for Caregiver Programme (CCP)	EORTC Quality of life (QOL)	Placebo	Singapore
Susan C. McMillan et al [24](2006)	111/109	63.06 (13.58)/ 59.98 (15.27)	M-24%, F-76%/ M-20%, F-80%	Coping skills intervention for Caregivers	Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOL-C), which is 35 items scored by using a five point Likert-type scale	Placebo	South Florida
Joanne M. Shaw et al [29](2015)	64/64	55.7 (14.9)/ 52.7 (11.8)	M-27%, F-73%/ M-28%, F-72%	Family Connect intervention	Caregiver QOL using the Short Form (SF)-12v2, a 12-item QOL questionnaires with two subscales that assess physical and mental well-being	Placebo	Australia
Virginia Sun et al [26](2015)	197/157	57.54 (14.31)/ 57.23 (13.16)	M-39.4%, F-60.6% /M-36.2%, F-63.8%	Palliative care intervention	Caregiver QOL tool	Placebo	California
Lapid, M. I. et al [27] (2016)	47/53	Mean age & SD = NA	Male and Female = NA	QOL intervention for caregivers	Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer Scale (CQOLC) with 35 items on 5-point Likert scales	Placebo	Rochester, USA

Data analysis

The final statistical study was carried out using RevMan Manager version 5.4 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) and the protocol from the current edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of RCT.

Continuous data on caregivers' quality of life outcomes was presented as a mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval. Chi-square test was used to evaluate heterogeneity using I² statistics of treatment effects among selected trials. I² of 0% indicates no heterogeneity, 50% indicates minimal heterogeneity, and > 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity, according to the researchers. For the final meta-analysis, the researchers used a fixed-effect model with a significant p-value of 0.05 and an I² statistic of 50% (with non-overlapping of CI in forest plot suggesting heterogeneity). All p-values were two-sided, with 0.05 indicating statistical significance. The funnel graph for the mean difference with standard error was plotted to analyse the caregiver quality of life to evaluate possible publication bias.

Study Selection and Characteristics

Initially, the PRISMA-2020 guidelines[30] were used to create the flow diagram that registered, screened, removed, and finally included in the search strategy. Using the PICO format (PubMed-24, PubMed Entral-10, Clinical Key-15, Google Scholar-18 and Cochrane-01) 68 studies were included, and 60 studies were omitted (Fig. 1). As a result of the screening, eight full-text RCTs qualified, meeting all eligibility criteria of this metanalysis.

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the eight trials that were included. A total of 1142 people took part in the eight trials in which caregivers were given training programmes to help them sustain and maintain their quality of life. For the primary outcome of caregiver quality of life, all eight trials had complete results.

To assess the impact of caregiver training programmes on maintaining their quality of life, funnel plots revealed no significant asymmetry from meta-analysis results (Fig. 4). The funnel plot of quality of life of cancer caregivers mean difference revealed no signs of publication selection bias.

Primary Outcome: Effect of Caregiver Interventional therapy of Quality of life

Total pooled result of eight studies (Fegg (2013) [21], Belgacem (2013) [22], Bahrami (2014) [23], Mabel (2015) [28], Susan (2015) [24], Joanne (2015) [25], Virginia (2015) [26] and Lapid (2016) [27]) showed no substantial difference in quality of life of caregiver with or without any intervention with MD- 0.10 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; p < 0.00001) (Fig. 5). The experimental group had 591 participants, while control group had 551 participants. The pooled analysis revealed high heterogeneity (I² = 88%, p < 0.00001).

This metanalysis revealed that there is a need to plan, perform, and report research on caregiver quality of life so that can be put into effect, with an emphasis on efficacy. The metanalysis key finding was that experiments and evaluation tools for caregivers were not planned in a systematic ways to maximised the potential for interventions to be adopted effectively. From an existing framework, we can learned about the complexities of operationalizing implementation outcomes.

According to this metanalysis, the documentation of cancer caregiver intervention research needs to be improved in order to promote their incorporation into practise. There seem to be two major concerns. To begin with, experiments were not planned in a way that maximised their chances of being implemented successfully. Second, in some cases, there is only a small amount of information available that is applicable to implementation.

Authors’ contributions

The authors contributed equally to the conception and writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Ethical approval and consent of participants

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/global.html
Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., and Bray, F.: ‘Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries’, 2021, 71, (3), pp. 209-249
Romito, F., Goldzweig, G., Cormio, C., Hagedoorn, M., and Andersen, B.L.: ‘Informal caregiving for cancer patients’, Cancer, 2013, 119 Suppl 11, (0 11), pp. 2160-2169
Dixe, M.d.A.C.R., da Conceição Teixeira, L.F., Areosa, T.J.T.C.C., Frontini, R.C., de Jesus Almeida Peralta, T., and Querido, A.I.F.: ‘Needs and skills of informal caregivers to care for a dependent person: a cross-sectional study’, BMC Geriatrics, 2019, 19, (1), pp. 255
LeSeure, P., and Chongkham-Ang, S.: ‘The Experience of Caregivers Living with Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis’, Journal of personalized medicine, 2015, 5, (4), pp. 406-439
Longacre, M.L., Ross, E.A., and Fang, C.Y.: ‘Caregiving Choice and Emotional Stress Among Cancer Caregivers’, Western journal of nursing research, 2014, 36, (6), pp. 806-824
Bevans, M., and Sternberg, E.M.: ‘Caregiving burden, stress, and health effects among family caregivers of adult cancer patients’, Jama, 2012, 307, (4), pp. 398-403
Northouse, L.L., Katapodi, M.C., Schafenacker, A.M., and Weiss, D.: ‘The Impact of Caregiving on the Psychological Well-Being of Family Caregivers and Cancer Patients’, Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 2012, 28, (4), pp. 236-245
Schulz, R., and Sherwood, P.R.: ‘Physical and mental health effects of family caregiving’, The American journal of nursing, 2008, 108, (9 Suppl), pp. 23-27; quiz 27
Niedzwiedz, C.L., Knifton, L., Robb, K.A., Katikireddi, S.V., and Smith, D.J.: ‘Depression and anxiety among people living with and beyond cancer: a growing clinical and research priority’, BMC Cancer, 2019, 19, (1), pp. 943
Silverman, M.N., and Deuster, P.A.: ‘Biological mechanisms underlying the role of physical fitness in health and resilience’, Interface focus, 2014, 4, (5), pp. 20140040
Darragh, A.R., Sommerich, C.M., Lavender, S.A., Tanner, K.J., Vogel, K., and Campo, M.: ‘Musculoskeletal Discomfort, Physical Demand, and Caregiving Activities in Informal Caregivers’, Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 2015, 34, (6), pp. 734-760
Leng, A., Xu, C., Nicholas, S., Nicholas, J., and Wang, J.: ‘Quality of life in caregivers of a family member with serious mental illness: Evidence from China’, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 2019, 33, (1), pp. 23-29
Noghani, F., Seyedfatemi, N., Karimirad, M.R., Akbarzadeh, A., and Hasanpour-Dehkordi, A.: ‘Health Related Quality of Life in Family Caregivers of Patients Suffering from Mental Disorders’, J Clin Diagn Res, 2016, 10, (11), pp. Vc05-vc09
Kalyani, C.V., Sharma, S.K., Kusum, K., and Lijumol, K.J.: ‘HealthCare-Related Quality of Life and Lived Existential Experiences among Young Adults Diagnosed with Cancer: A Mixed-Method Study’, Indian J Palliat Care, 2020, 26, (1), pp. 19-23
Best, A.L., Shukla, R., Adamu, A.M., Martinez Tyson, D., Stein, K.D., and Alcaraz, K.I.: ‘Impact of caregivers’ negative response to cancer on long-term survivors’ quality of life’, Support Care Cancer, 2021, 29, (2), pp. 679-686
Woźniak, K., and Iżycki, D.: ‘Cancer: a family at risk’, Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review, 2014, 13, (4), pp. 253-261
Conversano, C., Rotondo, A., Lensi, E., Della Vista, O., Arpone, F., and Reda, M.A.: ‘Optimism and its impact on mental and physical well-being’, Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH, 2010, 6, pp. 25-29
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L.A., and Group, P.-P.: ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement’, Systematic Reviews, 2015, 4, (1), pp. 1
Higgins, J.P., and Thompson, S.G.: ‘Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis’, Statistics in medicine, 2002, 21, (11), pp. 1539-1558
Fegg, M.J., Brandstätter, M., Kögler, M., Hauke, G., Rechenberg-Winter, P., Fensterer, V., Küchenhoff, H., Hentrich, M., Belka, C., and Borasio, G.D.: ‘Existential behavioural therapy for informal caregivers of palliative patients: a randomised controlled trial’, Psycho-oncology, 2013, 22, (9), pp. 2079-2086
Belgacem, B., Auclair, C., Fedor, M.C., Brugnon, D., Blanquet, M., Tournilhac, O., and Gerbaud, L.: ‘A caregiver educational program improves quality of life and burden for cancer patients and their caregivers: a randomised clinical trial’, Eur J Oncol Nurs, 2013, 17, (6), pp. 870-876
Bahrami, M., and Farzi, S.: ‘The effect of a supportive educational program based on COPE model on caring burden and quality of life in family caregivers of women with breast cancer’, Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res, 2014, 19, (2), pp. 119-126
McMillan, S.C., Small, B.J., Weitzner, M., Schonwetter, R., Tittle, M., Moody, L., and Haley, W.E.: ‘Impact of coping skills intervention with family caregivers of hospice patients with cancer: a randomized clinical trial’, Cancer, 2006, 106, (1), pp. 214-222
Shaw, J.M., Young, J.M., Butow, P.N., Badgery-Parker, T., Durcinoska, I., Harrison, J.D., Davidson, P.M., Martin, D., Sandroussi, C., Hollands, M., Joseph, D., Das, A., Lam, V., Johnston, E., and Solomon, M.J.: ‘Improving psychosocial outcomes for caregivers of people with poor prognosis gastrointestinal cancers: a randomized controlled trial (Family Connect)’, Support Care Cancer, 2016, 24, (2), pp. 585-595
Sun, V., Grant, M., Koczywas, M., Freeman, B., Zachariah, F., Fujinami, R., Del Ferraro, C., Uman, G., and Ferrell, B.: ‘Effectiveness of an interdisciplinary palliative care intervention for family caregivers in lung cancer’, Cancer, 2015, 121, (20), pp. 3737-3745
Lapid, M.I., Atherton, P.J., Kung, S., Sloan, J.A., Shahi, V., Clark, M.M., and Rummans, T.A.: ‘Cancer caregiver quality of life: need for targeted intervention’, Psycho-oncology, 2016, 25, (12), pp. 1400-1407
Leow, M., Chan, S., and Chan, M.: ‘A pilot randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention on family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer’, Oncol Nurs Forum, 2015, 42, (2), pp. E63-72
Lim, H.A., Tan, J.Y.S., Chua, J., Yoong, R.K.L., Lim, S.E., Kua, E.H., and Mahendran, R.: ‘Quality of life of family caregivers of cancer patients in Singapore and globally’, Singapore Med J, 2017, 58, (5), pp. 258-261
http://www.prisma-statement.org

Cancer Caregiver Quality of Life: Meta-Analysis

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Limitations

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1