gms | German Medical Science

19. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung

Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung e. V.

30.09. - 01.10.2020, digital

Evaluation of cancer counselling centres: a scoping review

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • Solveigh Lingens - Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland
  • Holger Schulz - Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland
  • Christiane Bleich - Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland

19. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung (DKVF). sine loco [digital], 30.09.-01.10.2020. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2020. Doc20dkvf348

doi: 10.3205/20dkvf348, urn:nbn:de:0183-20dkvf3487

Published: September 25, 2020

© 2020 Lingens et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Background: A diagnosis of cancer leaves most cancer patients and their relatives with an increased psychological burden. Throughout the course of the illness social, occupational or legal changes may also lead to psychological distress. The services offer psychological, social and legal support for cancer patients and their relatives. However, little is known about the effectiveness of CCC services.

Aim: Therefore, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of current literature assessing the effectiveness of face to face counselling at CCCs in improving cancer patients’ quality of life.

Method: Databases searched were PubMed (Medline), Ovid (PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, PsycArticle), Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase. The systematic search was conducted by two independent researchers. Studies included had to be published in English, peer-reviewed and had to contain at least one outcome measure. Studies that assessed psychotherapy, online support or telephone counselling were excluded. The review was reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

Results: A total of 1786 articles were identified by searching all databases. After excluding duplicates, screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 13 studies matching the criteria were identified. Most studies were cross-sectional with one measurement point and did not include a control group. Few studies were prospective with no control group. The most common outcome measures across studies were concerns and satisfaction with the counselling.

Discussion: The current literature on the effectiveness of CCCs lacks high-quality designs such as RCTs. Therefore, the effectiveness of CCCs with regard to psychosocial outcomes remains uncertain.

Practical implications: Longitudinal controlled studies are necessary to stress the importance of CCCs.