Background The prevalence of depression and anxiety is high in patients with lung cancer, while multiple psychological interventions have revealed a positive impact on patients’ negative emotions. However, it remains scarce which psychological intervention is the best choice for patients.This study was conducted to compare and rank the efficacy of psychological interventions on anxiety and depression in patients with lung cancer using a network meta-analysis.
Methods The Chinese academic database (CNKI, Wan Fang and Vip) and English academic database (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science) were searched from their inception to March 2022. Randomised controlled studies of psychological interventions on depression and anxiety in patients with lung cancer were included. Study selection and evaluation were conducted independently by two researchers. Included studies were performed a network meta-analysis to compare and rank the psychological interventions for negative emotions of patients with lung cancer. The clustered ranking of psychotherapies in the network was based on surface under the cumulative probability ranking curve values.
Results 23 studies (2221 participants) with 13 psychological interventions were retrieved. The random-effects model showed a significantly large effect size of supportive therapy for anxiety (mean difference, MD 14.38, 95% CI 2.42 to 26.21) and depression (MD 14.29, 95% CI 2.74 to 25.70). The supportive therapy, sandplay therapy and music therapy were top three rankings of interventions for anxiety, while supportive therapy, dignity therapy and sandplay therapy were the top three interventions for depression.
Conclusions Supportive therapy would be a more appropriate option for alleviating negative emotions in patients with lung cancer. Other psychological intervention techniques may be used as alternatives, such as sandplay therapy and music therapy for anxiety, dignity therapy and sandplay therapy for depression.
PROSPERO registration number CRD42022320188.
- Psychological care
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors (1) Conception and design: DY and YZ; (2) Provision of study materials: YH and JW; (3) Collection and assembly of data: DY, YH, ZG, and SL; (4) Data analysis and interpretation: DY and YZ; (5) Manuscript writing and revision: DY, YH and YZ and (6) Final approval of manuscript: all authors；（7）Guarantor of this study is YZ.
Funding This work was supported by Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation China (No. 2022JJ70053; 2022JJ70146).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.