Impact of non-pharmacological interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression scores in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Abstract

Different non-pharmacological interventions have been considered and applied to patients with colorectal cancer to improve their quality of life and distress symptoms; however, there is little evidence comparing the effectiveness of these strategies. This review aimed at assessing the effect of non-pharmacological interventions on quality of life, anxiety, and depression scores among patients with colorectal cancer. A systematic search for articles published until August 1, 2020, in the English language was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library; the reference lists of eligible articles were scanned for other potentially eligible publications. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to estimate pooled effect sizes. Twenty studies were included, representing a total of 3438 patients with colorectal cancer. Non-pharmacological interventions were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety (standardized mean difference [SMD] = - 0.157; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 0.312-[- 0.002]) and depression (SMD = - 0.207; 95% CI, - 0.390-[- 0.024]) scores during 5-8 months of follow-up. Subgroup analyses revealed that interventions delivered face-to-face improved patients' quality of life during 1-4 months of follow-up. Moreover, interventions delivered face-to-face but without a behavioral component were associated with improved anxiety scores, whereas interventions with a behavioral component improved the depression scores during 5-8 months of follow-up. Non-pharmacological interventions were associated with reduced anxiety and depression scores, whereas interventions delivered face-to-face were associated with improved quality of life scores in patients with colorectal cancer. Given the few studies and patients included in this meta-analysis, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution.