↓ Skip to main content

Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

7 tweeters
1 Facebook page


58 Dimensions

Readers on

283 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008729.pub2
Pubmed ID

Ghufran A Jassim, David L Whitford, Anne Hickey, Ben Carter


Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women worldwide. It is a distressing diagnosis and, as a result, considerable research has examined the psychological sequelae of being diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. Breast cancer is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety and reduced quality of life. As a consequence, multiple studies have explored the impact of psychological interventions on the psychological distress experienced after a diagnosis of breast cancer. To assess the effects of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities, quality of life and survival among women with non-metastatic breast cancer. We searched the following databases up to 16 May 2013: the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO; and reference lists of articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials in addition to handsearching. Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for non-metastatic breast cancer in women. Two review authors independently appraised and extracted data from eligible trials. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcome. Twenty-eight randomised controlled trials comprising 3940 participants were included. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. A wide range of interventions were evaluated, with 24 trials investigating a cognitive behavioural therapy and four trials investigating psychotherapy compared to control. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated less depression (SMD -1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to -0.18; P = 0.02; 7 studies, 637 participants, I(2) = 95%, low quality evidence), anxiety (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.21; P = 0.0006; 8 studies, 776 participants, I(2) = 64%, low quality evidence) and mood disturbance (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; P = 0.0003; 8 studies, 1536 participants, I(2) = 47%, moderate quality evidence) for the cognitive behavioural therapy group than the control group. For quality of life, only an individually-delivered cognitive behavioural intervention showed significantly better quality of life than the control with an SMD of 0.65 (95% CI 0.07 to 1.23; P = 0.03; 3 studies, 141 participants, I(2) = 41%, very low quality evidence). Pooled data from two group-delivered studies showed a non-significant overall survival benefit favouring cognitive behavioural therapy compared to control (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.32; P = 0.63; 530 participants, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). Four studies compared psychotherapy to control with one to two studies reporting on each outcome. The four studies were assessed as high risk of bias and provided limited evidence of the efficacy of psychotherapy. Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies. A psychological intervention, namely cognitive behavioural therapy, produced favourable effects on some psychological outcomes, in particular anxiety, depression and mood disturbance. However, the evidence for survival improvement is still lacking. These findings are open to criticism because of the notable heterogeneity across the included studies and the shortcomings of the included studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 277 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 19%
Researcher 41 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 14%
Unspecified 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 10%
Other 83 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 31%
Psychology 76 27%
Unspecified 39 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 12%
Social Sciences 15 5%
Other 30 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 August 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 233,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.