European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 2026
Effect of narrative interventions on psychological outcomes, sleep quality and quality of life in patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Çetiner Emine, Turan Kavradim Selma, Özer Zeynep
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to examine the effects of narrative interventions on psychological outcomes. Secondary outcomes included sleep quality and quality of life in patients with cancer.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched without any year restrictions. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software was used for the analysis, and the random effects model was used to determine the effects of narrative interventions. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was used for assessing the risk of bias. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was utilized in reporting study.
RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted between 2011 and 2025 in China (n = 8), the United States of America (n = 2), and Spain (n = 1). The results of the meta-analyses indicate that narrative interventions have moderate-quality evidence regarding quality of life (Hedge's g = 2.182, 95% CI 0.86, 3.50, p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (Hedge's g = 1.595, 95% CI 1.02, 2.16, p < 0.001), and low-quality evidence regarding anxiety (Hedge's g = -2.396, 95% CI -3.84, -0.94, p = 0.001), depression (Hedge's g = -1.473, 95% CI: -2.49, -0.45, p = 0.001), psychological resilience (Hedge's g = 1.430, 95% CI 0.69, 2.16, p < 0.001) and sleep quality (Hedge's g = 1.292, 95% CI 0.53, 2.04, p = 0.005). Regarding fear of cancer recurrence, no significant effect was found, with very low-quality evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that narrative interventions may offer potential benefits for certain outcomes, although the certainty of the evidence remains varied. The current evidence supports a cautious approach to clinical interpretation and highlights the need for high-quality trials.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched without any year restrictions. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software was used for the analysis, and the random effects model was used to determine the effects of narrative interventions. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was used for assessing the risk of bias. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline was utilized in reporting study.
RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted between 2011 and 2025 in China (n = 8), the United States of America (n = 2), and Spain (n = 1). The results of the meta-analyses indicate that narrative interventions have moderate-quality evidence regarding quality of life (Hedge's g = 2.182, 95% CI 0.86, 3.50, p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (Hedge's g = 1.595, 95% CI 1.02, 2.16, p < 0.001), and low-quality evidence regarding anxiety (Hedge's g = -2.396, 95% CI -3.84, -0.94, p = 0.001), depression (Hedge's g = -1.473, 95% CI: -2.49, -0.45, p = 0.001), psychological resilience (Hedge's g = 1.430, 95% CI 0.69, 2.16, p < 0.001) and sleep quality (Hedge's g = 1.292, 95% CI 0.53, 2.04, p = 0.005). Regarding fear of cancer recurrence, no significant effect was found, with very low-quality evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that narrative interventions may offer potential benefits for certain outcomes, although the certainty of the evidence remains varied. The current evidence supports a cautious approach to clinical interpretation and highlights the need for high-quality trials.