Journal of pain and symptom management · 2024
Psychological Interventions for Mesothelioma Patients and Their Caregivers: A Systematic Literature Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Franzoi Isabella Giulia, Sauta Maria Domenica, De Luca Alessandra, Barbagli Francesca, Granieri Antonella
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Malignant Mesothelioma (MM) has a striking impact on the somatopsychic balance of patients and their families, including physical, psychological, and interpersonal problems. The aim of this systematic literature review was to investigate what psychological interventions are offered to patients with MM and their caregivers worldwide.
METHODS: The review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The literature search led to the identification of 12 articles. Results were categorized into five categories. 1. Individual psychological support, 2. Group psychological support, 3. Cognitive-behavioral group psychotherapy, 4. Brief psychoanalytic groups, 5. Multifamily group.
RESULTS: The interventions differed in terms of form, duration and resources used. Most of them were group-based and psychoanalytically oriented, although individual and cognitive-behavioral interventions were also described. Despite the differences, the interventions appeared to be fundamental in facilitating the processing of mental pain and anger related to the diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that there are still few psychological interventions available for MM patients and their caregivers. The somatopsychic consequences of MM in patients and caregivers should encourage institutions and healthcare professionals to develop assessment and intervention models that address the different dimensions of their suffering and promote their residual vitality.
METHODS: The review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The literature search led to the identification of 12 articles. Results were categorized into five categories. 1. Individual psychological support, 2. Group psychological support, 3. Cognitive-behavioral group psychotherapy, 4. Brief psychoanalytic groups, 5. Multifamily group.
RESULTS: The interventions differed in terms of form, duration and resources used. Most of them were group-based and psychoanalytically oriented, although individual and cognitive-behavioral interventions were also described. Despite the differences, the interventions appeared to be fundamental in facilitating the processing of mental pain and anger related to the diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that there are still few psychological interventions available for MM patients and their caregivers. The somatopsychic consequences of MM in patients and caregivers should encourage institutions and healthcare professionals to develop assessment and intervention models that address the different dimensions of their suffering and promote their residual vitality.