Table 4.

Mapping intervention domains and classes to study outcomes.

Intervention characteristics		Impact of intervention in controlled studies on:*							Summary of qualitative evidence on acceptability and experience
Domain	Class	Quality of life	Psychological wellbeing	Physical wellbeing	Care quality/access	Existential/spiritual wellbeing	Sleep/fatigue	Social
		Outcome measures for which significant positive effects reported (follow up time-point post-intervention, weeks)
Topic	Illness	+	+++ OOOOO	+	+	O	+ O - **	+	• One qualitative study reported the intervention was well-received and helped patient feel more cared for 54
		FACT-G (12)	Composite (12) IES (12) BDI (36)	SSS (12)	Uptake MHS (8)		PSQI (up to 10)	MSIS, QMI (0)
	Trauma	OO	OO	O		+O			• One study reported participants found the intervention “overwhelmingly” helpful and could relate as a whole person. 63 • Two case studies reported positive feedback from participants, including better symptom control, improved communication, reduced distress and promoted dignity and self-esteem 52 and a sense of release, closure and distraction, as well as facilitating patients entering into therapy. 53
						QUAL-E (5)
	Positive	+OOO	++OO	O		+OOO	O	+	• One study reported participants found the intervention “overwhelmingly” helpful and could “relate as a whole person” (i.e. more than just their condition). 63
		MDASI (2-8)	CES-D, IES (4-12) SCS (2-8)			QUAL-E (5)		PAIRI (2-8)
	Future	+	O						• One case study reported positive feedback from participants including a sense of release, closure and distraction, and facilitated patients entering into therapy. 53
		FACT-G (12)
	Growth	+OOOO	+++OOO	+ OO		+ OO	OOO	+	• One study reported participants found the intervention “overwhelmingly” helpful and could “relate as a whole person” (i.e. more than just their condition). 63
		MDASI (2-8)	PHQ-9 (6) CES-D, IES (4-12) SCS (2-8)	ESAS-pain (8)		QUAL-E (5)		PAIRI (2-8)
	Ways of coping	O	+ O	+ O			OO		• One qualitative study reported the interventions were well-received and helped patient feel more cared for 54
			PHQ-9 (6)	ESAS-pain (8)
	General	+O	+++			O	O	+	None reported
		MDASI (2-8)	CES-D, IES (4-12) SCS (2-8) ETS—anxiety (0)					PAIRI (2-8)
Format	Spoken	+OOOO	++++ OOOOO	+OOO		+ OO	OOO	++	• One study reported participants found intervention “overwhelmingly” helpful 63 and another reported the interventions were well-received and helped patient feel more cared for 54 • Two case studies reported positive feedback from participants, including better symptom control, improved communication, reduced distress and promoted dignity and self-esteem 52 and a sense of release, closure and distraction, as well as facilitating patients entering into therapy. 53
		MDASI (2-8)	PHQ-9 (6) BDI (36) CES-D, IES (4-12) SCS (2-8)	ESAS-pain (8)		QUAL-E (5)		PAIRI (2-8) MSIS, QMI (0)
	Written	+	++ OOO	+	+	O	+ O - **		None reported
		FACT-G (12)	IES (12) ETS—anxiety (0)	SSS (12)	Uptake MHS (12)		PSQI (up to 10)
	Flexible		+						None reported
			Composite measure (12)
Dose	One-off	O	+ O	+ O			OO		• One qualitative study reported the interventions were well-received and helped patient feel more cared for 54
			PHQ-9 (6)	ESAS-pain (8)
	Short term	++ OOO	++++++OOOOOOO	+O	+	+ OOO	+ OO - **	++	• One study reported participants found intervention “overwhelmingly” helpful and could “relate as a whole person” (i.e. more than just their condition) 63 • One case study reported positive feedback from participants: a sense of release, closure and distraction, facilitation to enter therapy. 53
		FACT-G (12) MDASI (2-8)	Composite measure(12) IES (12) BDI (36) CES-D, IES (4-12) SCS (2-8) ETS—anxiety (0)	SSS (12)	Uptake MHS (8)	QUAL-E (5)	PSQI (up to 10)	PAIRI (2-8) MSIS, QMI (0)
	Long-Term								• One case study reported positive feedback from participant, including better symptom control, improved communication, reduced distress, and promoted dignity and self-esteem 52

Key: +Study reported a significant difference between intervention and control group in favor of intervention on at least one measure in class.

−Study reported a significant difference between intervention and control group in favor of control on at least one measure in class.

O study reported no significant difference between intervention and control group on any measure in class.

The number of +/− in each column indicates the total number of studies that reported a significant difference between the intervention and control group in each class. For measures where a significant difference was identified in favor of the intervention (+), the outcome measures for which those differences were identified are listed. Measures used in the same study are separated by commas. Measures used in different studies are on separate lines.

BDI: beck depression inventory; CES-D: center for epidemiological studies depression scale; ESAS: Edmonton symptom assessment scale; ETS: emotion thermometer scale; FACT-G: functional assessment of cancer therapy- general; IES: impact of events scale; MDASI: MD Anderson symptom inventory; MHS: mental health services; MSIS: miller social intimacy scale; PAIRI: personal assessment of intimacy in relationships inventory; PHQ-9: personal health questionnaire-9; PSQI: Pittsburgh sleep quality index; QMI: quality of marriage index; QUAL-E: quality of life at the end of life; SCS: self-compassion scale; SSS: somatic symptom scale.

^*We describe results as effective based on statistical significance reported in the study, although we recognize that this is limited in that it provides no indication of the size or importance of an effect. Detailed results on the nature of the effect reported in each study are reported in Supplemental File 5. Only studies that were designed to evaluate efficacy were included in this part of the table.

^**EW participants with a longer duration of time since diagnosis exhibited increases in sleep disturbances.