Poster Presentation 2025 Joint Meeting of the COSA ASM and IPOS Congress

Stress management operationalisation within psychosocial interventions and impact on cancer patients and survivors’ stress response: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (126547)

Anna Vigano 1 , David R. Skvarc 1 , Lana Williams 2 , John W. Toumbourou 1 , Michael H. Antoni 3 , Trish Livingston 4 , Victoria White 4
  1. School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic, Australia
  2. IMPACT Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic, Australia
  3. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA
  4. School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic, Australia

Objective: Cancer diagnosis and treatment often lead to significant psychological distress, negatively affecting both mental and physical health. This systematic review examines how stress management is operationalised in psychosocial cancer trials and includes a meta-analysis on the interventions' impact on stress reduction.

Procedures: We searched 5 databases (PsycINFO, Complete Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL),  between 1/1/1990 and 1/4/2025 to identify English-language peer-reviewed studies meeting the eligibility criteria:  randomised control trial (RCT); involves adults with current or past diagnosis of any cancer, intervention aimed to reduce stress (e.g., relaxation, guided imagery, mindfulness); primary outcome of psychological or biomarker stress measure. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and the meta-analysis, conducted using Jamovi, quantified the overall effect of the interventions immediately after completion. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for RCTs.

Results: Of 17800 unique titles/abstracts reviewed, 106 articles from 98 unique studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. Most studies focused on patients undergoing cancer treatment (n=71), with fewer targeting the survivorship phase (n=25), and only two focused on both. Mostly, stress was measured using psychological scales (n=52), with 32 studies using biomarkers and 14 studies using both. The most common interventions were mindfulness-based (n=20), yoga (n=15), and stress management programs (n=13). Meta-analysis showed a significant effect of interventions in reducing stress, with a pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) of –0.71 (95% CI: –0.88 to –0.53), indicating a moderate-to-large effect size.

Conclusions and implications: This review provides insight into how stress management is operationalised in psychosocial intervention trials involving people with cancer. Meta-analysis results suggest these interventions are effective in reducing stress. Further research is needed to explore how they can be integrated into routine care for cancer survivors.