Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
IJERPHInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

19 October 2022

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

,
,
and
1
University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth Campus, Duluth, MN 55812, USA
2
College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
3
Department of Occupational & Recreational Therapies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022, 19(20), 13561;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013561
This article belongs to the Special Issue Close Relationships and Health
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

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.

1. Introduction

Nearly 40% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetimes [1]. Many of these individuals receive substantial, unpaid, support from an informal caregiver, often a family member or friend. Both patient and caregiver psychological and physical health have been shown to be impacted by cancer, and importantly, many studies have documented the interdependence of psychological and physical outcomes in patients and their caregivers [2,3]. Traditionally, psychosocial and behavioral interventions to improve patient and caregiver health have been targeted toward the individual [4,5]. However, because of the interdependence between patients and caregivers [6], research has espoused the benefits of dyadic behavioral interventions to support well-being. In these interventions, two people—often the person with cancer and their caregiver—are active participants in the intervention. Findings suggest the dyadic approach is effective for improving well-being, including depression, anxiety, and quality of life [7,8].
Many existing psychosocial interventions, including those developed for dyads, are pathology- and deficit-oriented. Positive psychology offers a re-orientation to this approach, as it is a field of psychological theory and research that focuses on the psychological states, individual traits, and social institutions that enhance subjective well-being [9]. As such, interventions that are based on or incorporate aspects of positive psychology (from here on referred to as positive psychology approaches, or PPAs) aim to supplement the traditional “fix-what’s-wrong” model and seek to build on individuals’ strengths, resources, and values to increase overall well-being [10]. Importantly, PPAs do not deny or ignore the negative; rather, they aim to provide a more balanced approach to treatment to develop positive cognitions, emotions, and behaviors [11]. Specific intervention activities that are part of PPAs vary but can be generally grouped by the five pillars of positive psychology: enhancing positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning-making, and accomplishment (PERMA) [12,13]. In general, PPAs have few to no negative side effects and require comparably fewer resources than traditional therapies or interventions [14,15]. These activities can often be delivered in person one-on-one, in groups, by phone, and/or online or in self-guided formats, and may be the sole focus or one element of a multi-component intervention.
PPAs have been effectively applied to various populations [16,17,18], and have been shown to significantly increase well-being and decrease depressive symptoms [10,11,14] with long-lasting effects [19]. In cancer populations, a number of studies based on PPAs have demonstrated positive outcomes for individuals. For example, meaning-centered group therapy was shown to be effective for cancer survivors to improve personal meaning, psychological well-being and adjustment to cancer in the short term, and over long term, reduce psychological distress [20]. An online gratitude intervention was found to decrease death-related fear of recurrence in breast cancer patients [21]. Additionally, a systematic review of positive psychology interventions in breast cancer found positive changes in breast cancer patients’ quality of life, well-being, hope, benefit finding, and optimism [22].
PPAs are typically targeted at individuals but are well-suited for dyads. They may promote individual benefits, but there may also be synergistic benefits due to interdependence of well-being and quality of life outcomes in close dyads [6,23]—that is, as one partner experiences improvements in mood/stress, this may positively benefit the other partner’s mood. For example, a study examining savoring (i.e., purposively attending to past, present, and potential future positive experiences to enhance positive cognitions and emotions [24]) in family dyads coping with cancer found that, in addition to savoring being associated with one’s own positive affect and life satisfaction, the patient’s savoring was associated with the caregiver’s positive affect, and caregiver savoring was associated with the patient’s life satisfaction [24].
Although there is growing evidence that dyadic PPAs may be useful to improve key psychosocial outcomes in cancer patients and caregivers, the literature on dyadic PPAs in cancer populations is newer and less well-established. As such, the objective of this scoping review was to conduct a thorough search of the literature to provide an overview of the available research evidence for use of a dyadic PPA with cancer patients and their caregivers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Definition of PPA and Scope of Review

Because positive psychology has not historically focused on a single, refined approach, the field’s scope is large and there is substantial heterogeneity [25]. However, we use theory and previous reviews of PPA research (e.g., [14,22]) to guide our definition of PPA and the scope of this review. A PPA was broadly defined as a psychological intervention or therapeutic approach that primarily focused on building on existing strengths and resources—both personal and interpersonal—to meet life’s challenges and actively facilitate growth, resilience, and well-being [10,26].
Our scope included interventions rooted in positive psychology theory or tradition (e.g., well-being therapy, hope therapy) and interventions whose primary goal is to increase positive feelings, positive cognitions, or positive behavior, as opposed to interventions aiming to reduce symptoms, problems, or disorders. Interventions focused primarily on one or more of the five pillars of positive psychology noted earlier were included; for example, interventions that emphasize focusing on the positive or that enhance the enjoyment of positive experience (savoring), and interventions that promote meaning and purpose. Interventions that are primarily mindfulness-based (e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction/MBSR) or interventions that include mindfulness along with other PPA-based components were included, as mindfulness is linked to the positive psychology pillar of positive emotion, and mindfulness is often considered a tool of positive psychology [27].
We excluded studies that focused primarily on activities-based interventions that are not explicitly rooted in positive psychology, including yoga or other physical exercises for purposes of promoting well-being, relaxation and imagery/visualization exercises, art therapy, and music therapy. We also excluded interventions that do not have a primary focus on at least one of the five pillars of positive psychology, including behavioral activation, psychoeducational interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, cognitive behavioral stress management, acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, problem-focused therapies, psychodynamic therapy, and supportive-expressive therapy.

2.2. Information Sources and Search Strategy

Our team developed a list of search terms (See Supplemental Tables S1 and S2) based on our definition of PPAs. A detailed and systematic search was conducted between May 2019 and September 2021 using a combination of free-text-keywords, MeSH, and database-specific controlled vocabulary within PubMed.gov, EMBASE, and Central (Cochrane Library). Search results were downloaded in RIS format from each database/website and imported into an EndNote library. Once compiled into the library, search results were deduplicated three times, once using EndNote, once upon uploading into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation), and finally once during the title and abstract screening process. Backward searches were conducted using citations in reviews and meta-analyses identified in our initial search until no additional relevant articles were found. Two reviewers were used at each stage of screening (i.e., title and abstract screening, full-text screening).

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

See Supplemental Table S3 for a detailed description of inclusion and exclusion criteria. We searched for studies related to PPAs, as described above, delivered to adult dyads comprised of a cancer patient/survivor and one member of the survivor’s informal social support network (i.e., family member or friend). We stipulated that the intervention must be delivered to both members of the dyad together for at least part of the intervention, although the intervention did not have to place equal emphasis on both dyad members. For example, the intervention could be delivered to patients individually for most sessions and to the dyad together for a smaller portion of the sessions, and/or outcomes did not have to be assessed or analyzed for both dyad members (e.g., analyses could focus exclusively on patient outcomes). (See the Discussion section below for additional discussion on the variety of ways that “dyadic” may be interpreted in this context.)
English-language peer-reviewed articles reporting results of original research—e.g., pilot trials, randomized control trials, and secondary analyses—were included. Articles were not excluded based on publication date. Articles which merely described a study protocol or intervention and did not report results were excluded, such as published and unpublished protocols, methodology write-ups, and guideline reports. Case studies and non-peer-reviewed theses, dissertations, and book chapters were also excluded. Meta-analyses and reviews were not included, but their reference lists were hand-searched to find relevant articles that may have been missed in our database searches.

2.4. Study Selection Process

The screening and review process followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org/, accessed on 14 January 2022). See Figure 1 for the PRISMA flow diagram. A total of 3316 articles were identified through the database search, with an additional 10 articles identified via hand search (3326 total). From these, 232 duplicates were removed, resulting in 3094 studies screened by authors against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 2868 articles were excluded during the title/abstract screening process. A total of 226 articles were moved to full-text review; 180 were excluded, most commonly because they did not include a PPA (n = 62, 34.4%) or they were not original research (e.g., reviews, meta-analyses; n = 58, 32.2%). Ultimately, 48 studies were selected for data extraction and reporting. Consistent with scoping review guidelines, methodological quality and risk of bias were not assessed [28].
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram.

3. Results

Search results yielded 48 articles, all published between 2002–2021. See Table 1 for a summary; Supplemental Table S3 shows demographic information for each study’s sample. Twenty-eight unique interventions were assessed across these 48 articles; 21 of these 28 interventions (75.0%) were reported in only a single publication. Thirty-nine of the 48 articles were primary analyses; eight articles (16.7%) were secondary analyses [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], and patient and caregiver results for one trial were reported in two separate articles [37,38] and were counted together as a single primary analysis. Primary studies included a variety of cancer sites, including breast (n = 7 of 39, 17.9%), prostate (n = 6, 15.4%), lung (n = 6, 15.4%), and mixed or unspecified site (n = 16, 41.0%). Overall, studies encompassed a wide range of cancer stages, from early stage to hospice care; five primary studies (12.8%) specifically focused on advanced cancer. Most primary studies were randomized controlled trials (n = 23 of 39, 59.0%), and 14 were single-arm trials (35.9%). There was substantial variability in sample size across studies, ranging from 5–484 dyads. Most studies (n = 37 of 48, 77.1%) were published after 2010; 12 (25.0%) were published in 2019 or later. Most primary studies were conducted in North America (n = 31 of 39, 79.5%).
Table 1. Summary of Studies Included in this Review.
The FOCUS intervention was published on by far the most frequently, with 11 studies (22.9% of 48 included studies, including three secondary analyses) assessing variations of the intervention: brief/extended versions, self-managed web-based versions, and a group-based version. COPE and DYP were the only other interventions included in more than two papers.
There was substantial variation in how the non-patient dyad member was defined. In 21 of the 39 primary studies (53.8%) this dyad member was classified under a general “caregiver” label, which was defined in a variety of ways and sometimes not at all; however, by far the most common type of caregiver was the patient’s spouse/partner, with an average of 71% of participating caregivers being the patient’s spouse/partner, across studies that reported this information. Study inclusion criteria for caregiver participants varied by time (e.g., time living together, times visited patient), relationship type (e.g., friend, family), or by who “provided the most care” to the patient. Sixteen primary studies (41.0%) specifically recruited patients’ spouses/partners (vs. “caregivers” defined more broadly), which varied in including/excluding same-sex partners. The studies that specifically enrolled spouses/partners almost exclusively dealt with breast and prostate cancer.

3.1. Positive Psychology Approaches: Intervention Content

Table 2 contains a summary of each intervention’s structure and content, as well as relevant pillar(s) of positive psychology. Although the term “positive psychology” was explicitly mentioned in relation to only one intervention in this review (CBM [41]) aspects of positive psychology were found throughout the descriptions of interventions: Each intervention included a primary focus on activities relevant to at least one and up to four of the five positive psychology pillars. Most commonly, interventions included components related to the positive emotions pillar (n = 20 of 28 unique interventions, 71.4%); in this review, we further categorized positive emotion components into those focused on mindfulness, present in 10 interventions (38.5%), optimism/hope, and other/general positive emotions, both in six interventions (23.1%). Meaning-making and positive relationships were also commonly-represented pillars, each in 11 interventions (39.3%). Activities related to engagement and accomplishment pillars were less common, each in two interventions (7.7%). Beyond CBM [41], which was explicitly informed by positive psychology processes, no intervention was exclusively composed of PPAs. Rather, aspects of positive psychology were included with other dyadic intervention components such as education, managing symptoms, coping, and intimacy.
Table 2. Description of Interventions Included in this Review.

3.2. Outcomes Assessed

Given the relative novelty of dyadic interventions in cancer using PPAs, it is not surprising that many studies focused on feasibility, acceptability, or satisfaction of study components (n = 19 of 48; 39.6%) as primary outcomes. However, a broad range of psychosocial constructs were also assessed as primary outcomes (see Table 1). The most common outcomes were quality of life (n = 27 of 48; 56.3%), depression (n = 14; 29.2%), and anxiety (n = 10; 20.8%), though a variety of unique measures were used to assess these constructs. Overall patterns of results suggest trends towards intervention effectiveness in improving quality of life and reducing depression and anxiety in at least one member of the dyad. Other constructs were too infrequently assessed to make generalities about effectiveness.

4. Discussion

This scoping review highlights the current research on positive psychology approaches (PPAs) in dyads coping with cancer. Findings show that dyadic interventions using PPAs are increasingly used in oncology, particularly as part of multi-component interventions. Interventions were delivered over multiple sessions by an interventionist either to individual dyads or to dyads within a group context. Interventions targeted a wide variety of cancer patients, across both disease site and trajectory, and the type of dyad partner also varied; while many dyads included the patient’s spouse or partner, most studies included a broadly-defined “caregiver.” The primary outcomes assessed in these interventions were individual psychological well-being and quality of life or distress (including anxiety and depression), dyadic coping or adjustment, and, less often, physical symptoms such as fatigue or pain. This spectrum of intervention participants and targeted outcomes speaks to the flexibility and potential broad application of PPAs, especially as part of a multicomponent intervention.
This review found a variety of activities relevant to positive psychology were used in interventions. Activities were most commonly focused on pillars of positive emotion—especially mindfulness, and optimism or hope—as well as meaning-making and positive relationships. These constructs are particularly well-suited for dyadic interventions in oncology. First, mindfulness, hope, and meaning-making can all be helpful coping tools for cancer patients and their family caregivers [77,78,79,80,81,82]; these cognitive strategies may be especially useful in oncology settings where individuals may feel they have little control over the cancer. Dispositional optimism also has important impacts on symptom experience and quality of life for cancer patients [83] and all-cause mortality more broadly [84]. Cancer has long been viewed as a “family disease”; patients often include family members in decision-making and increasingly rely on caregivers, especially as their health declines [85,86]. This, combined with the benefits of social support in cancer [87,88], means that the oncology setting may especially lend itself to dyadic interventions and a focus on positive relationships.
While the breadth of activities within PPAs demonstrates the wide applicability, similar to previous reviews [14,22], we find this can also create difficulties in pinpointing specific benefits. Since many existing interventions include PPAs as one component among several others (e.g., education, problem-solving, social support), it is difficult to evaluate what may be driving the effects of a given intervention. Some PPAs may also serve as multipliers for the effects of more traditional intervention tools. For example, mindfulness exercises may help participants to focus, reducing anxiety and making problem-solving or education more effective. Finding meaning in their experience may give dyads a deeper well of resilience to draw from when coping with the stresses of cancer. However, particularly because most interventions identified in our search were multi-component, more work is needed to identify mechanisms and determine which specific PPAs are most effective for whom and in which situations. Similarly, when multiple PPAs are employed in a study, it may be beneficial to disentangle how those work together in different contexts to affect key outcomes.
Similarly, other researchers have called for more work to better understand how, why, and for whom dyadic interventions specifically are effective [7]. PPAs typically target the individual, and much of the empirical research supporting the effectiveness of PPAs is based on individual participants, not dyads. It is undeniable that the dyadic aspect of an intervention adds another dimension, which should also be considered in identifying mechanisms. The high level of interdependence of mental and physical health between cancer patients and their family caregivers or spouses, who often participate in dyadic studies, may mean that independent effects are compounded, plus there may be additional unique dyadic effects [6,23]. For example, a gratitude activity between partners may enhance positive emotion and feelings of connectedness in the dyad, which could promote coping with cancer-related stress.
Though many of the studies included in this review focused (appropriately) on feasibility and acceptability, there remains a need to identify which outcomes are most appropriate to measure as key intervention targets. Our review suggests that dyadic interventions with PPAs may be beneficial in terms of quality of life, depression, and anxiety, yet there is no consensus around other constructs that may be impacted, or how to measure these constructs. More work mapping out mechanisms and outcomes to a conceptual model and testing these theories can be beneficial in moving the field forward. Further, using validated measures that allow for data harmonization will be important for future meta-analyses.
Although all interventions in this review included dyads, not all interventions were purely dyadic. In several interventions, some sessions were targeted specifically for patients and included both patient and their dyad partner only in select sessions. For example, the QOL intervention [30] held six sessions for patients, and caregivers were invited to four of these sessions deemed most relevant to both patients and caregivers. Other interventions were delivered to both dyad members, but either due to the specific activities selected or the design of the intervention, maintained an individual focus. Examples include the TSM intervention [34,71], in which both the patient and partner were coached in relaxation exercises, and the COPE intervention [32,45,46], in which both patient and partner were provided guidance in maintaining an optimistic outlook for themselves. This contrasts with other, more truly dyadic, interventions in which dyads participate in activities together and the focus is more on the interaction or interdependence of activities. For example, the ECG intervention [52] included a “wish list” of positive acts each spouse could do for the other and leveraged support to make changes and increase intimacy. Similarly, the FOCUS intervention [55,57,59] included brainstorming positive activities to do together and relies on family strengths. Many interventions also included a hybrid model of both individual and dyadic targets, which may be an ideal strategy to leverage the benefits of interdependence. Additional research is needed to identify benefits to different levels of dyadic inclusion across different activities and interventions.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

It is well-documented that recruitment and retention of dyads in cancer research is challenging, particularly in advanced cancer contexts. Interventions in our review targeted dyads across the cancer trajectory from diagnosis to end of life. While interventions were largely feasible and offered benefits across this trajectory, most studies in our review were relatively small, and most of their findings have not yet been replicated. Further, the majority of studies sampled patients and caregivers who were mostly White, relatively high-socioeconomic status, and from the US or other Western countries, and spouses/partners were by far the most common type of dyad partner (vs. adult children, siblings, etc.) represented in these studies (see Table 1 and Supplemental Table S3). It is unclear how selection bias may impact the uptake and effectiveness of these interventions. Future research with larger, more diverse samples is needed.
Additionally, although (by design) all interventions in this review targeted dyads—a cancer patient and a partner—the specific role or relationship of the partner may vary (and in some cases, was not clearly defined). For example, some studies focused specifically on romantic partners, while others focused on primary caregivers. These two roles may be taken on by the same individual (i.e., a romantic partner might also be the primary caregiver), but there is certainly some variability—caregivers may also be adult children, siblings, or others, and some romantic partners may also not be highly involved in providing care for the cancer patient. This variability needs additional exploration.
Finally, our review may be limited by a lack of consistent terminology and a consensus definition of “positive psychology approaches” or “positive psychology interventions” [14,22]. Only one intervention was explicitly based in positive psychology, though all included PPAs. This lack of specificity may arise from the relatively recent developmental history of positive psychology [89], which was born from Martin Seligman’s theme during his American Psychological Association presidency to more broadly consider the full human experience as being both negative and positive, and to therefore encourage the latter (as well as consider the former). This called for the integration of positive psychology into existing practice, as opposed to establishing a singular approach. As such, there is not yet a clear, widely-accepted set of specific key words to identify these studies, and some dyadic PPAs may not have been identified in this scoping review. We found PPAs in interventions developed across disciplines, including nursing, social work, and palliative care. This demonstrates the broad appeal of these tools, yet also may contribute to the challenges of finding a shared terminology across fields of study.
A multidisciplinary consensus group to begin creating more solid definitions and key terms may be an important step for the growth of this field. Based on our findings—as well as previously-conducted systematic reviews on positive psychology interventions—we propose the following definition: Positive psychology approaches include any intervention that contains in part or wholly aspects of positive psychology theory (e.g., PERMA) to build on recipients’ strengths, resources, and values, and whose primary goal is to increase positive feelings, cognitions, and/or behavior, which may be the sole goal of the intervention or in addition to more traditional symptom amelioration.

4.2. Clinical Implications

Identifying mechanisms and key components to interventions is important for future dissemination and implementation research. Most interventions in this scoping review involved multiple sessions and many were delivered by highly-trained interventionists, such as nurses, social workers, and clinical psychologists. Understanding the specific components driving effects can help reduce resources needed to deliver interventions and may facilitate translation to alternative delivery systems (e.g., virtual or mHealth). Research supports that mHealth-delivered PPAs can be effectively applied to increase well-being and decrease depression across various populations [90,91]. Several interventions identified in our review included a phone or web-based delivery method (e.g., [65,75]), which can facilitate access to a population that is remotely located, may have mobility or transportation issues, or who simply do not have time or energy to convene for programs.
Clinicians should note that positive psychology offers useful, relatively simple approaches to improving quality of life that can be implemented alongside other approaches, such as education. Given the feasibility of dyadic PPAs, as well as the potential for synergistic effects on well-being, clinicians can also consider including caregivers or other supportive individuals in psychosocial assessments and when offering psychosocial resources, including those that include PPAs.

5. Conclusions

Positive psychology approaches hold promise to have large impacts on improving psychosocial outcomes for those coping with cancer. Further, dyadic PPAs can offer benefits to individuals, but these benefits may be compounded within dyads due to interdependence effects and partner influence. Given the high levels of anxiety and depression that are often reported in both patients and partners coping with cancer, dyadic PPAs may be important tools to improve quality of life. However, to date, the types of positive psychology-based activities that have been delivered in dyadic interventions are highly variable. More work is needed to develop terminology and understand specific mechanisms to develop this area of research and fully appreciate the potential benefits of these tools.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph192013561/s1.

Author Contributions

All authors affirm that all authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, the screening and review process, and interpretation of findings; drafted or critically revised this work for important intellectual content; approved this work for publication; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (5T32CA090314-16, PIs: T. H. Brandon & S. T. Vadaparampil).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Susan Sharpe of the Moffitt Cancer Center biomedical library for her assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Islami, F.; Ward, E.M.; Sung, H.; Cronin, K.A.; Tangka, F.K.L.; Sherman, R.L.; Zhao, J.; Anderson, R.N.; Henley, S.J.; Yabroff, K.R.; et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Part 1: National Cancer Statistics. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2021, 113, 1648–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ellis, K.R.; Janevic, M.R.; Kershaw, T.; Caldwell, C.H.; Janz, N.K.; Northouse, L. Engagement in health-promoting behaviors and patient–caregiver interdependence in dyads facing advanced cancer: An exploratory study. J. Behav. Med. 2017, 40, 506–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kelley, D.E.; Kent, E.E.; Litzelman, K.; Mollica, M.A.; Rowland, J.H. Dyadic associations between perceived social support and cancer patient and caregiver health: An actor-partner interdependence modeling approach. Psycho-Oncology 2019, 28, 1453–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Teo, I.; Krishnan, A.; Lee, G.L. Psychosocial interventions for advanced cancer patients: A systematic review. Psycho-Oncology 2019, 28, 1394–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahn, S.; Romo, R.; Campbell, C.L. A systematic review of interventions for family caregivers who care for patients with advanced cancer at home. Patient Educ. Couns. 2020, 103, 1518–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kershaw, T.; Ellis, K.R.; Yoon, H.; Schafenacker, A.; Katapodi, M.; Northouse, L. The Interdependence of Advanced Cancer Patients’ and Their Family Caregivers’ Mental Health, Physical Health, and Self-Efficacy over Time. Ann. Behav. Med. 2015, 49, 901–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Badr, H.; Bakhshaie, J.; Chhabria, K. Dyadic Interventions for Cancer Survivors and Caregivers: State of the Science and New Directions. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2019, 35, 337–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hu, Y.; Liu, T.; Li, F. Association between dyadic interventions and outcomes in cancer patients: A meta-analysis. Support. Care Cancer 2019, 27, 745–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. American Psychological Association. APA Dictionary of Psychology; American Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. Seligman, M.E.P.; Steen, T.A.; Park, N.; Peterson, C. Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 410–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sin, N.L.; Lyubomirsky, S. Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. J. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 65, 467–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Seligman, M.E. Flourish: The New Positive Psychology and the Search for Well-Being; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  13. Seligman, M. PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. J. Posit. Psychol. 2017, 13, 333–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bolier, L.; Haverman, M.; Westerhof, G.J.; Riper, H.; Smit, F.; Bohlmeijer, E. Positive psychology interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Terrill, A.L.; Reblin, M.; MacKenzie, J.J.; Cardell, B.; Einerson, J.; Berg, C.A.; Majersik, J.J.; Richards, L. Development of a novel positive psychology-based intervention for couples post-stroke. Rehabil. Psychol. 2018, 63, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alschuler, K.N.; Arewasikporn, A.; Nelson, I.K.; Molton, I.R.; Ehde, D.M. Promoting resilience in individuals aging with multiple sclerosis: Results from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Rehabil. Psychol. 2018, 63, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Cohn, M.A.; Pietrucha, M.E.; Saslow, L.R.; Hult, J.R.; Moskowitz, J.T. An online positive affect skills intervention reduces depression in adults with type 2 diabetes. J. Posit. Psychol. 2014, 9, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Müller, R.; Gertz, K.J.; Molton, I.R.; Terrill, A.L.; Bombardier, C.H.; Ehde, D.M.; Jensen, M.P. Effects of a Tailored Positive Psychology Intervention on Well-Being and Pain in Individuals With Chronic Pain and a Physical Disability: A Feasibility Trial. Clin. J. Pain 2016, 32, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cohn, M.A.; Fredrickson, B.L. In search of durable positive psychology interventions: Predictors and consequences of long-term positive behavior change. J. Posit. Psychol. 2010, 5, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. van der Spek, N.; Vos, J.; van Uden-Kraan, C.F.; Breitbart, W.; Cuijpers, P.; Holtmaat, K.; Witte, B.I.; Tollenaar, R.A.E.M.; Verdonck-de Leeuw, I.M. Efficacy of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Psychol Med. 2017, 47, 1990–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Otto, A.K.; Szczesny, E.C.; Soriano, E.C.; Laurenceau, J.-P.; Siegel, S.D. Effects of a randomized gratitude intervention on death-related fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Health Psychol. 2016, 35, 1320–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Casellas-Grau, A.; Font, A.; Vives, J. Positive psychology interventions in breast cancer. A systematic review. Psycho-Oncology 2013, 23, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jacobs, J.M.; Shaffer, K.M.; Nipp, R.D.; Fishbein, J.; MacDonald, J.; El-Jawahri, A.; Pirl, W.; Jackson, V.A.; Park, E.R.; Temel, J.S.; et al. Distress is Interdependent in Patients and Caregivers with Newly Diagnosed Incurable Cancers. Ann. Behav. Med. 2017, 51, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hou, W.K.; Liang, L.; Lau, K.M.; Hall, M. Savouring and psychological well-being in family dyads coping with cancer: An actor–partner interdependence model. Eur. J. Cancer Care 2019, 28, e13047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Alex, L.P.; Joseph, S.; Harrington, S.; Wood, A.M. Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. J. Posit. Psychol. 2006, 1, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rashid, T.; Seligman, M.P. Positive Psychotherapy: Clinician Manual; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  27. Allen, J.G.; Romate, J.; Rajkumar, E. Mindfulness-based positive psychology interventions: A systematic review. BMC Psychol. 2021, 9, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Peters, M.D.J.; Godfrey, C.M.; Khalil, H.; McInerney, P.; Parker, D.; Soares, C.B. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Harden, J.; Falahee, M.; Bickes, J.; Schafenacker, A.; Walker, J.; Mood, D.; Northouse, L. Factors associated with prostate cancer patients’ and their spouses’ satisfaction with a family-based intervention. Cancer Nurs. 2009, 32, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lapid, M.I.; Atherton, P.J.; Kung, S.; Sloan, J.A.; Shahi, V.; Clark, M.M.; Rummans, T.A. Cancer caregiver quality of life: Need for targeted intervention. Psycho-Oncology 2016, 25, 1400–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Martinez, K.A.; Friese, C.; Kershaw, T.; Given, C.W.; Fendrick, A.M.; Northouse, L. Effect of a Nurse-Led Psychoeducational Intervention on Healthcare Service Utilization Among Adults With Advanced Cancer. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2015, 42, E310–E318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. McMillan, S.C.; Small, B.J. Using the COPE intervention for family caregivers to improve symptoms of hospice homecare patients: A clinical trial. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2007, 34, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Piderman, K.M.; Johnson, M.E.; Frost, M.H.; Atherton, P.J.; Satele, D.V.; Clark, M.M.; Lapid, M.I.; Sloan, J.A.; Rummans, T.A. Spiritual quality of life in advanced cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Psycho-Oncology 2014, 23, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Winger, J.G.; Rand, K.L.; Hanna, N.; Jalal, S.I.; Einhorn, L.H.; Birdas, T.J.; Ceppa, D.P.; Kesler, K.A.; Champion, V.L.; Mosher, C.E. Coping Skills Practice and Symptom Change: A Secondary Analysis of a Pilot Telephone Symptom Management Intervention for Lung Cancer Patients and Their Family Caregivers. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2018, 55, 1341–1349.e1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Titler, M.G.; Shuman, C.; Dockham, B.; Harris, M.; Northouse, L. Acceptability of a Dyadic Psychoeducational Intervention for Patients and Caregivers. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2020, 47, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Cottingham, A.H.; Beck-Coon, K.; Bernat, J.K.; Helft, P.R.; Schmidt, K.; Shields, C.G.; Torke, A.M.; Johns, S.A. Addressing personal barriers to advance care planning: Qualitative investigation of a mindfulness-based intervention for adults with cancer and their family caregivers. Palliat. Support. Care 2019, 17, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lau, B.H.P.; Chow, A.Y.M.; Ng, T.K.; Fung, Y.L.; Lam, T.C.; So, T.H.; Chan, J.S.M.; Chan, C.H.Y.; Zhou, J.; Tam, M.Y.J.; et al. Comparing the efficacy of integrative body-mind-spirit intervention with cognitive behavioral therapy in patient-caregiver parallel groups for lung cancer patients using a randomized controlled trial. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2020, 38, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xiu, D.; Fung, Y.L.; Lau, B.H.; Wong, D.F.K.; Chan, C.H.Y.; Ho, R.T.H.; So, T.H.; Lam, T.C.; Lee, V.H.; Lee, A.W.M.; et al. Comparing dyadic cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with dyadic integrative body-mind-spirit intervention (I-BMS) for Chinese family caregivers of lung cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial. Support. Care Cancer 2020, 28, 1523–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, Q.; Xu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Loke, A.Y. A couple-based complex intervention for Chinese spousal caregivers and their partners with advanced cancer: An intervention study. Psycho-Oncology 2015, 24, 1423–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mosher, C.E.; Secinti, E.; Hirsh, A.T.; Hanna, N.; Einhorn, L.H.; Jalal, S.I.; Durm, G.; Champion, V.L.; Johns, S.A. Acceptance and commitment therapy for symptom interference in advanced lung cancer and caregiver distress: A pilot randomized trial. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2019, 58, 632–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Milbury, K.; Weathers, S.-P.; Durrani, S.; Li, Y.; Whisenant, M.; Li, J.; Lim, B.; Weinberg, J.S.; Kesler, S.R.; Cohen, L. Online couple-based meditation intervention for patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors and their partners: Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2020, 59, 1260–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saita, E.; Acquati, C.; Molgora, S. Promoting Patient and Caregiver Engagement to Care in Cancer. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Collins, A.L.; Love, A.W.; Bloch, S.; Street, A.F.; Duchesne, G.M.; Dunai, J.; Couper, J.W. Cognitive existential couple therapy for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients and their partners: A descriptive pilot study. Psycho-Oncology 2013, 22, 465–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Couper, J.; Collins, A.; Bloch, S.; Street, A.; Duchesne, G.; Jones, T.; Olver, J.; Love, A. Cognitive existential couple therapy (CECT) in men and partners facing localised prostate cancer: A randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2015, 115, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McMillan, S.C.; Small, B.J.; Weitzner, M.; Schonwetter, R.; Tittle, M.; Moody, L.; Haley, W.E. Impact of coping skills intervention with family caregivers of hospice patients with cancer: A randomized clinical trial. Cancer 2006, 106, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Meyers, F.J.; Carducci, M.; Loscalzo, M.J.; Linder, J.; Greasby, T.; Beckett, L.A. Effects of a problem-solving intervention (COPE) on quality of life for patients with advanced cancer on clinical trials and their caregivers: Simultaneous care educational intervention (SCEI): Linking palliation and clinical trials. J. Palliat. Med. 2011, 14, 465–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Gremore, T.M.; Brockstein, B.; Porter, L.S.; Brenner, S.; Benfield, T.; Baucom, D.H.; Sher, T.G.; Atkins, D. Couple-based communication intervention for head and neck cancer: A randomized pilot trial. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 3267–3275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wang, C.; Chen, J.; Wang, Y.; Xu, W.; Xie, M.; Wu, Y.; Hu, R. Effects of family participatory dignity therapy on the psychological well-being and family function of patients with haematologic malignancies and their family caregivers: A randomised controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2021, 118, 103922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Milbury, K.; Mallaiah, S.; Mahajan, A.; Armstrong, T.; Weathers, S.P.; Moss, K.E.; Goktepe, N.; Spelman, A.; Cohen, L. Yoga Program for High-Grade Glioma Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy and Their Family Caregivers. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2018, 17, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Milbury, K.; Li, J.; Weathers, S.P.; Mallaiah, S.; Armstrong, T.; Li, Y.; Bruera, E.; Cohen, L. Pilot randomized, controlled trial of a dyadic yoga program for glioma patients undergoing radiotherapy and their family caregivers. Neurooncol. Pract. 2019, 6, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Milbury, K.; Liao, Z.; Shannon, V.; Mallaiah, S.; Nagarathna, R.; Li, Y.; Yang, C.; Carmack, C.; Bruera, E.; Cohen, L. Dyadic yoga program for patients undergoing thoracic radiotherapy and their family caregivers: Results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology 2019, 28, 615–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Manne, S.L.; Siegel, S.D.; Heckman, C.J.; Kashy, D.A. A randomized clinical trial of a supportive versus a skill-based couple-focused group intervention for breast cancer patients. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2016, 84, 668–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Northouse, L.L.; Walker, J.; Schafenacker, A.; Mood, D.; Mellon, S.; Galvin, E.; Harden, J.; Freeman-Gibb, L. A family-based program of care for women with recurrent breast cancer and their family members. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2002, 29, 1411–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Northouse, L.; Kershaw, T.; Mood, D.; Schafenacker, A. Effects of a family intervention on the quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psycho-Oncol. J. Psychol. Soc. Behav. Dimens. Cancer 2005, 14, 478–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Northouse, L.L.; Mood, D.W.; Schafenacker, A.; Montie, J.E.; Sandler, H.M.; Forman, J.D.; Hussain, M.; Pienta, K.J.; Smith, D.C.; Kershaw, T. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer 2007, 110, 2809–2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Northouse, L.L.; Mood, D.W.; Schafenacker, A.; Kalemkerian, G.; Zalupski, M.; LoRusso, P.; Hayes, D.F.; Hussain, M.; Ruckdeschel, J.; Fendrick, A.M. Randomized clinical trial of a brief and extensive dyadic intervention for advanced cancer patients and their family caregivers. Psycho-Oncology 2013, 22, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Northouse, L.; Schafenacker, A.; Barr, K.L.; Katapodi, M.; Yoon, H.; Brittain, K.; Song, L.; Ronis, D.L.; An, L. A tailored Web-based psychoeducational intervention for cancer patients and their family caregivers. Cancer Nurs. 2014, 37, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dockham, B.; Schafenacker, A.; Yoon, H.; Ronis, D.L.; Kershaw, T.; Titler, M.; Northouse, L. Implementation of a psychoeducational program for cancer survivors and family caregivers at a cancer support community affiliate: A pilot effectiveness study. Cancer Nurs. 2016, 39, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Titler, M.G.; Visovatti, M.A.; Shuman, C.; Ellis, K.R.; Banerjee, T.; Dockham, B.; Yakusheva, O.; Northouse, L. Effectiveness of implementing a dyadic psychoeducational intervention for cancer patients and family caregivers. Support. Care Cancer 2017, 25, 3395–3406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Chen, H.L.; Annie Kao, T.S.; Reuille, K.M.; Northouse, L. FOCUS Program: Treating Patients With Cancer and Family Caregivers as a Unit of Care. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2021, 25, E17–E25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Birnie, K.; Garland, S.N.; Carlson, L.E. Psychological benefits for cancer patients and their partners participating in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Psycho-Oncology 2010, 19, 1004–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lengacher, C.A.; Kip, K.E.; Barta, M.; Post-White, J.; Jacobsen, P.B.; Groer, M.; Lehman, B.; Moscoso, M.S.; Kadel, R.; Le, N.; et al. A pilot study evaluating the effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction on psychological status, physical status, salivary cortisol, and interleukin-6 among advanced-stage cancer patients and their caregivers. J. Holist. Nurs. 2012, 30, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Johns, S.A.; Beck-Coon, K.; Stutz, P.V.; Talib, T.L.; Chinh, K.; Cottingham, A.H.; Schmidt, K.; Shields, C.; Stout, M.E.; Stump, T.E.; et al. Mindfulness Training Supports Quality of Life and Advance Care Planning in Adults With Metastatic Cancer and Their Caregivers: Results of a Pilot Study. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2020, 37, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chien, C.H.; Chung, H.J.; Liu, K.L.; Pang, S.T.; Wu, C.T.; Chang, Y.H.; Huang, X.Y.; Chang, Y.H.; Lin, T.P.; Lin, W.Y.; et al. Effectiveness of a couple-based psychosocial intervention on patients with prostate cancer and their partners: A quasi-experimental study. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 2572–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Song, L.; Rini, C.; Deal, A.M.; Nielsen, M.E.; Chang, H.; Kinneer, P.; Teal, R.; Johnson, D.C.; Dunn, M.W.; Mark, B.; et al. Improving Couples’ Quality of Life Through a Web-Based Prostate Cancer Education Intervention. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2015, 42, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kayser, K.; Feldman, B.N.; Borstelmann, N.A.; Daniels, A.A. Effects of a randomized couple-based intervention on quality of life of breast cancer patients and their partners. Soc. Work Res. 2010, 34, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bevans, M.; Castro, K.; Prince, P.; Shelburne, N.; Prachenko, O.; Loscalzo, M.; Soeken, K.; Zabora, J. An individualized dyadic problem-solving education intervention for patients and family caregivers during allogeneic HSCT: A feasibility study. Cancer Nurs. 2010, 33, E24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Baucom, D.H.; Porter, L.S.; Kirby, J.S.; Gremore, T.M.; Wiesenthal, N.; Aldridge, W.; Fredman, S.J.; Stanton, S.E.; Scott, J.L.; Halford, K.W. A couple-based intervention for female breast cancer. Psycho-Oncol. J. Psychol. Soc. Behav. Dimens. Cancer 2009, 18, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Robertson, J.; McNamee, P.; Molloy, G.; Hubbard, G.; McNeill, A.; Bollina, P.; Kelly, D.; Forbat, L. Couple-Based Psychosexual Support Following Prostate Cancer Surgery: Results of a Feasibility Pilot Randomized Control Trial. J. Sex. Med. 2016, 13, 1233–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Heinrichs, N.; Zimmermann, T.; Huber, B.; Herschbach, P.; Russell, D.W.; Baucom, D.H. Cancer distress reduction with a couple-based skills training: A randomized controlled trial. Ann. Behav. Med. 2012, 43, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mosher, C.E.; Winger, J.G.; Hanna, N.; Jalal, S.I.; Einhorn, L.H.; Birdas, T.J.; Ceppa, D.P.; Kesler, K.A.; Schmitt, J.; Kashy, D.A.; et al. Randomized Pilot Trial of a Telephone Symptom Management Intervention for Symptomatic Lung Cancer Patients and Their Family Caregivers. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2016, 52, 469–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Milbury, K.; Chaoul, A.; Engle, R.; Liao, Z.; Yang, C.; Carmack, C.; Shannon, V.; Spelman, A.; Wangyal, T.; Cohen, L. Couple-based Tibetan yoga program for lung cancer patients and their caregivers. Psycho-Oncology 2015, 24, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Shields, C.G.; Rousseau, S.J. A pilot study of an intervention for breast cancer survivors and their spouses. Fam. Process. 2004, 43, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wagner, C.D.; Johns, S.; Brown, L.F.; Hanna, N.; Bigatti, S.M. Acceptability and feasibility of a meaning-based intervention for patients with advanced cancer and their spouses: A pilot study. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 2016, 33, 546–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mosher, C.E.; Secinti, E.; Johns, S.; O’Neil, B.H.; Helft, P.R.; Shahda, S.; Jalal, S.I.; Champion, V.L. Examining the effect of peer helping in a coping skills intervention: A randomized controlled trial for advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients and their family caregivers. Qual. Life Res. 2018, 27, 515–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Clark, M.M.; Rummans, T.A.; Atherton, P.J.; Cheville, A.L.; Johnson, M.E.; Frost, M.H.; Miller, J.J.; Sloan, J.A.; Graszer, K.M.; Haas, J.G.; et al. Randomized controlled trial of maintaining quality of life during radiotherapy for advanced cancer. Cancer 2013, 119, 880–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Shennan, C.; Payne, S.; Fenlon, D. What is the evidence for the use of mindfulness-based interventions in cancer care? A review. Psycho-Oncology 2011, 20, 681–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wood, A.W.; Gonzalez, J.; Barden, S.M. Mindful Caring: Using Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy With Caregivers of Cancer Survivors. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 2015, 33, 66–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Prip, A.; Møller, K.A.; Nielsen, D.L.; Jarden, M.; Olsen, M.-H.; Danielsen, A.K. The Patient-Healthcare Professional Relationship and Communication in the Oncology Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review. Cancer Nurs. 2018, 41, E11–E22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Corn, B.W.; Feldman, D.B.; Wexler, I. The science of hope. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, e452–e459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Park, C.L. Meaning and meaning making in cancer survivorship. In The Human Quest for Meaning: Theories, Research, and Applications, 2nd ed.; Personality and Clinical Psychology Series; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 521–538. [Google Scholar]
  82. Applebaum, A.J.; Breitbart, W. Care for the cancer caregiver: A systematic review. Palliat. Support. Care 2013, 11, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Matzka, M.; Köck-Hódi, S.; Jahn, P.; Mayer, H. Relationship among symptom clusters, quality of life, and treatment-specific optimism in patients with cancer. Support. Care Cancer 2018, 26, 2685–2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Craig, H.; Freak-Poli, R.; Phyo, A.Z.Z.; Ryan, J.; Gasevic, D. The association of optimism and pessimism and all-cause mortality: A systematic review. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 177, 110788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hobbs, G.S.; Landrum, M.B.; Arora, N.K.; Ganz, P.A.; van Ryn, M.; Weeks, J.C.; Mack, J.W.; Keating, N.L. The role of families in decisions regarding cancer treatments. Cancer 2015, 121, 1079–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Tulsky, J.A.; Steinhauser, K.E.; LeBlanc, T.W.; Bloom, N.; Lyna, P.R.; Riley, J.; Pollak, K.I. Triadic agreement about advanced cancer treatment decisions: Perceptions among patients, families, and oncologists. Patient Educ. Couns. 2021, 105, 982–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kadambi, S.; Soto-Perez-de-Celis, E.; Garg, T.; Loh, K.P.; Krok-Schoen, J.L.; Battisti, N.M.L.; Moffat, G.T.; Gil-Jr, L.A.; Mohile, S.; Hsu, T. Social support for older adults with cancer: Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 2020, 11, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. del-Pino-Casado, R.; Frías-Osuna, A.; Palomino-Moral, P.A.; Ruzafa-Martínez, M.; Ramos-Morcillo, A.J. Social support and subjective burden in caregivers of adults and older adults: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0189874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Seligman, M.E.P.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Positive psychology: An introduction. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Proyer, R.; Gander, F.; Wellenzohn, S.; Ruch, W. Positive psychology interventions in people aged 50–79 years: Long-term effects of placebo-controlled online interventions on well-being and depression. Aging Ment. Health 2014, 18, 997–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mitchell, J.; Vella-Brodrick, D.; Klein, B. Positive Psychology and the Internet: A Mental Health Opportunity. E-J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 6, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Capital Formation, Green Innovation, Renewable Energy Consumption and Environmental Quality: Do Environmental Regulations Matter?
Previous
Measurement of China’s Green Total Factor Productivity Introducing Human Capital Composition
Next