Dibbell‐Hope 1989.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Quasi‐RCT 2‐arm wait‐list control group design |
|
| Participants | Women with breast cancer, stage I or stage II who completed treatment 6 to 60 months prior to study. 81% of the women had a modified radical mastectomy as the primary treatment. Other treatments included chemotherapy (21%), radiation (19%) and reconstruction (10%). 60% of the participants had completed treatment 24 to 60 months prior to the study. Mean age: 54.7 years N randomized: 33 (n of each group unclear) N analyzed for dance/movement therapy group: 15 N analyzed for control group: 16 Ethnicity: 90% Caucasian Setting: Churches Country: US |
|
| Interventions | Two study groups: 1. Dance/movement therapy group: Authentic Movement 2. Control groups: Wait‐list control The study was carried out at two sites resulting in four groups Number of sessions: 6 Length of sessions: 3 hours |
|
| Outcomes | Mood (Profile of Mood States), distress (Symptom Check List‐90‐Revised), body Image (Borscheid, Walster, Bohrnstedt Body‐Image Scale, 25‐item version)(Borscheid 1972), self‐esteem (Marlowe‐Crowne Social Desirability Scale)(Crowne 1960): post‐test scores per site. | |
| Notes | Mean post‐test scores and pooled SD for the two sites combined were computed by JB. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Alternate assignment (personal communication with chief investigator) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Alternate assignment prohibited adequate allocation concealment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Blinding of participants and therapist is not possible in dance/movement therapy interventions unless a comparative design is used |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Study did not include objective outcomes |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes | High risk | All subjective outcomes were measured via self‐report |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Data of two women were eliminated because of extreme scores |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | There are no indications of selective reporting for this study |
| Free from financial conflict of interest? | Low risk | No funding support |