4.3 Review

Positive Psychology Approaches to Interventions for Cancer Dyads: A Scoping Review

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013561

关键词

positive psychology; dyads; cancer; cancer survivors; caregivers; interventions

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [5T32CA09-0314-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the available research evidence for use of dyadic PPA-based interventions in cancer and identify gaps in this literature. The results showed that PPAs were often paired with other intervention components, focusing on individual well-being or dyadic coping/adjustment outcomes.
Objective: Positive psychology approaches (PPAs) to interventions focus on developing positive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Benefits of these interventions may be compounded when delivered to interdependent dyads. However, dyadic interventions involving PPAs are relatively new in the cancer context. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the available research evidence for use of dyadic PPA-based interventions in cancer and identify gaps in this literature. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a scoping review of intervention studies that included PPAs delivered to both members of an adult dyad including a cancer patient and support person (e.g., family caregiver, intimate partner). Results: Forty-eight studies, including 39 primary analyses and 28 unique interventions, were included. Most often (53.8%), the support person in the dyad was broadly defined as a caregiver; the most frequent specifically-defined role was spouse (41.0%). PPAs (e.g., meaning making) were often paired with other intervention components (e.g., education). Outcomes were mostly individual well-being or dyadic coping/adjustment. Conclusions: Wide variability exists in PPA type/function and their targeted outcomes. More work is needed to refine the definition/terminology and understand specific mechanisms of positive psychology approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据