Table 4.

Outcomes Reported in Trials Comparing Interventions with Family Component to Alternative Family-Involved Interventions or Patient Interventions*

Author, year	Cancer Type	n +	Study quality‡	Quality of Life				Depression/anxiety	Symptom control/ management	Relationship adjustment
				Physical functioning	Psychological functioning§	Social functioning	Global QoL
Family intervention of interest: Telephone or web-based counseling for family and patients (n = 5)
Badger 200733	breast∥	97	fair					↔/↑
Badger 201134	prostate#	71	fair	↔	↔/↓++			↓++	↓++
Budin 200822	breast∥	249	fair	↔§§	↑§§	↔§§			↔§§
Mishel 200216	prostate∥	239	fair						±
Schover 201235	prostate∥	115	fair		↔‡‡				↔‡‡	↔‡‡
Family intervention of interest: Adaptations of couples CBT (n = 2)
Porter 200940	GI**	130	good		↔					↑
Canada 200537	prostate	84	poor		↔§§				↔§§	↔§§
Family intervention of interest: Family-assisted approaches to patient care (n = 2)
Nezu 200328	any∥	150	poor		post ↔ 6 mo post ↔/↑		post ↔ 6 mo post↔	post ↔ 6 mo post↔	post ↔ 6 mo post ↑
Porter 201139	lung∥	233	good	↔		↔		↔	↔
Family intervention of interest: Family-focused CBT interventions that include family coping and problem solving (n = 1)
McMillan 200732	any¶	329	fair				±		±
Family intervention of interest: Unique family-involved interventions (n = 3)
Gustafson, 201338	lung¶	285	fair	6 mo post↔					↑
Mokuau 200841	any	12	fair		↑
Stephenson 200742	any¶	90	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

⁺⁺Health education attention control showed significantly more improvement than family intervention of interest (interpersonal telephone counseling)

^‡‡Compared face-to-face couple intervention to similar content delivered to couple via Internet

^§§Authors report significance of group by time interactions but no data were reported, and therefore, no effect sizes were calculated. Arrows reflect authors’ report of the significance of group x time interaction