Table 1.

Description of studies and sample characteristics (n = 2117)

	Subjects	Intervention	Outcome (tool)	Main results
(Carmack et al., 2011) in the US[27]	∙Individuals with stage I, II, III colon or rectal cancer (n = 40: intervention n = 25 vs. control n = 15) ∙Mean age = 56.2 years ∙Women (63%)	12 one-hour sessions over four months (nine weekly sessions, two bimonthly sessions, and one concluding session in month 4)	QOL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires)	For individuals in the intervention group, EORTC emotional functioning was not found to have significantly improved at two months, but had at four months. For the control group, EORTC was not significant at two or four months.
(Jefford et al., 2016) in Australia[48]	∙Individuals with stage I, II, or III colon or rectal cancer (n = 217: survivor care n = 110 vs. normal care n = 107) ∙ Mean age = 62.1 years for the intervention group and 63.1 years for the control group ∙ Women (47.7% for the intervention group and 49.1 for the control group)	Four main components: 1) an information package; 2) a nurse-led, face-to-face end-of-treatment session; 3) a tailored survivor care plan; and 4) nurse-led telephone follow-ups at one, three, and seven weeks after the first intervention session	European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-30) and CRC module (EORTC QLQ CR-29)	At two and six months post-baseline, all differences in QLO-C30 and QLQ C-29 between the two groups were small and not significant.
(Lee, Ho, & Chan, 2010) in Hong Kong[49]	∙Patients with colorectal cancer (n = 166: intervention n = 84 vs. n = 82 control) ∙Mean age = 60 years (58.9 years for the intervention groups and 60.5 years for the control group) ∙Women (33.7 and 36.4% for the intervention groups and 31% for the control group)	Participants in intervention received body-mind-spirit intervention for 15 h. Each group consisted of 10 to 12 members and met weekly for five weeks.	QOL was measured using the validated Chinese version of the SF-36	No significant interaction effect (time × intervention) either in the intervention or control groups for SF-36 was found.
(Lepore, Revenson, Roberts, Pranikoff, & Davey, 2015) in the US[50]	∙Patients diagnosed with stage I-III cancer of the colon or rectum and who had completed surgical treatment within the previous five years (n = 193: intervention n = 101 vs. control n = 92) ∙ Mean age = 54.4 years for the intervention group and 55.8 years for the control group ∙ Women (49.5% for the intervention group and 48.9 for the control group)	Participants were asked to write for 15 min twice a week for two weeks about their deepest thoughts and feelings concerning their cancer, other stressors, or both.	Five domains of the Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-30) developed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer	There was no statistical difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of: global quality of life; physical functioning; role functioning; emotional functioning; cognitive functioning; or social functioning.
(Ohlsson-Nevo et al., 2016) in Sweden[13]	∙Patients treated surgically for colon, rectal, or anal cancer (n = 86: intervention n = 47 vs. control n = 39) ∙ Mean age = 66.1 years for the intervention group and 65.9 years for the control group ∙ Women (41.7% for the intervention group and 31.6% for the control group)	The program included seven meetings that each featured 60-min informational lectures. Topics included colorectal cancer, music and relaxation, the operating theatre, the importance of engaging in physical activities, the meaning of food, crisis and crisis intervention, and patients’ organization	SF-36 were measured at baseline, one, six, and 12 months after the end of the program	∙The intervention group reported significantly better overall mental health status than the control at one month after the end of the program. The between-group difference was of moderate size. ∙No statistically significant between-group differences in overall physical health status were observed at any of the follow-up assessments, but the effect sizes indicated that the intervention group had a small effect after six and 12 months. ∙Within the intervention group, significant improvements in both PCS and MCS were found: PCS; 0-one month, zero–six months, zero–12 months; MCS zero–, zero–six months, zero–12 months.
(Ross, Thomsen, Karlsen, Boesen, & Johansen, 2005) in Denmark[51]	∙ Colorectal cancer patients (n = 249; intervention n = 125 vs. control n = 124) ∙Median age = 68.8 years for the intervention group and 68.1 years for the control group ∙Women (50% for the intervention group and 53% for the control groups)	Over the first two years after discharge, the intervention group received 10 home visits from a project nurse or a medical doctor. These visits were aimed at providing emotional and information and support and encouraging the patients to make use of their own social networks to cope with the disease.	European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core questionnaire QOQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-CR38 for the specific colorectal cancer module	∙At the three-month follow-up, following the most intensive period of intervention, the only significant difference between the intervention and control groups was symptoms of fatigue. ∙Also at the three-month follow-up, all 15 subscales/items of EORTC QLQ-C30 were in favor of the intervention group, but this pattern did not persist during the full two-year period of follow-ups and was not observed on the colorectal cancer module (EORTC QLQ-CR38). ∙The intervention had no overall effect on the level of QOL. Further, no differential development with time during follow-up was observed on the employed scales, except for a differential development with time in the groups for social functioning: at the first follow-up interview the control group had a lower level of social functioning than the intervention group, but this difference diminished with time.
(Young et al., 2013) in Australia [52]	∙Adult patients undergoing surgery for primary colorectal cancer (n = 756; intervention n = 387 vs. control n = 369) ∙Mean age = 68.6 years for the intervention group and 67 years for the control group ∙Women (43.2% for the intervention group and 45.8% for the control group)	This intervention involved no face-to-face contact. It consisted of five scheduled, structured telephone calls on days three and 10 and then at one, three, and six months after hospital discharge. The phone conversations were based on the findings of a clinical audit of the postoperative needs of patients with colorectal cancer.	Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C)	There was no significant difference in QOL between the groups at any follow-up time point: one month; three months; or six months.
(Hawkes, Pakenham, Chambers, Patrao, & Courneya, 2014) in Australia[26]	∙Adult patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of primary colorectal cancer within the previous 12 months (n = 410: intervention n = 205 vs. control n = 205) ∙Mean age = 64.9 years for the intervention group and 67.8 years for the control group ∙Women (48.3% for the intervention group and 43.9% for the control group)	This intervention featured four components: 1) 11 telephone-delivered health coaching sessions over six months; 2) a participant handbook; 3) regular motivational postcards; and 4) a pedometer. Both groups also received a quarterly study newsletter	Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C, version 4) was used to measure QOL at baseline, six months and 12 months.	∙In the intervention group, there significant improvements in quality of life were observed at six and 12 months; physical well-being at six and 12 months; social well-being at six months; emotional well-being at six and 12 months; functional well-being at six and 12 months; and additional well-being at six and 12 months. ∙The intervention group showed significantly higher improvements in physical well-being at six and 12 months than the control group. **However, total quality of life score and subscales were also significantly improved in the control group**