Table 2.

Outcomes Reported in Trials Comparing Interventions with Family Component to Usual Care or Wait List Control*

Author, year (ref)	Cancer type	n +	Study quality‡	Quality of Life				Depression/ anxiety	Symptom control/ Management	Relationship adjustment
				Physical functioning	General psychological functioning§	Social functioning	Global QoL
Telephone or web-based counseling for family and patients (n = 4)
Budin 200822	breast∥	249	fair	↔	↑	↔			↑
Mishel 200216	prostate∥	239	fair						↔/±
Northouse 200521	breast**	200	fair	↔	↔			↔
Northouse 200715	prostate#	263	fair	↔	↔		↔	↔	↔
Adaptations of couples CBT (n = 5)
Baucom 200923	breast∥	14	fair	↔++	↔				↔++	↔++
Campbell 2004, 200717,18	prostate	40	fair	↔	↔				↔
Kayser 201024	breast∥	63	fair				↔
Manne 2005, 200713,25	breast∥	238	fair		↔			↔
Manne 201119	prostate∥	71	fair		↔					↔
Family-assisted approaches to patient care (n = 4)
Keefe 200526	any¶	78	fair	↔		↔			↔
Kozachik 200127	any#	120	poor					↔
McCorkle 200720	prostate∥	126	poor					↔	↑/↔	↔
Nezu 200328	any∥	150	poor		↑		↔	↑	↑
Family-focused CBT interventions that include family coping and problem solving (n = 4)
Blanchard 199629	any	86	fair	↔	↔	↔	↔	↔	↔	↔
Kurtz 200531	any#	237	fair	↑		↑		↑
McMillan 200732	any¶	329	fair				↔		↔/↑
Meyers 201130	any¶	476	fair				±
Unique intervention (n = 1)
Giesler 200514	prostate∥	99	fair	↔	↔	↔		↔	↔	↔

RATINGS: ↑ Family intervention significantly better than comparator; ↔ No significant difference between family intervention and comparator; ↓ Family intervention significantly worse than comparator; ± Significance not reported or could not be determined

*Adapted from expanded evidence report, Griffin et al.⁶

⁺Number randomized

^‡ Good (low risk of bias): The trial reported adequate allocation concealment, a minimum of single blinding (participants or investigators or assessors are blinded), and that either intent-to-treat analysis was conducted or clear reasons for dropouts/attrition by group were provided. Fair (moderate risk of bias): The trial met or was unclear for allocation concealment and blinding with no more than one of the remaining domains (ITT, withdrawals) unmet. A trial with adequate allocation concealment that did not meet other domains was rated fair. Poor (high risk of bias): The trial had inadequate allocation concealment or blinding and/or clearly met only one of the established risks of bias domains

^§Includes broad measures of general psychological functioning or psychological or emotional distress that do not directly correspond with conditions or diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)

^∥Only early to mid-stage cancer included; ^¶Only late-stage cancer included; ^#All stages of cancer included; **Mid-stage to late-stage cancer included

⁺⁺Authors report intervention was “superior” to usual care for physical function, symptom control, and relationship adjustment based on medium to large effect sizes; no confidence intervals or p values reported