Page 139 - HHR-HNR 2.0

fifteen 60-minute therapy sessions. After completion of the therapy, the treatment goals are evaluated together with the patient.\u000D5.7.5 Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions\u000DA review by Semple and colleagues describes seven randomised and controlled studies that evaluate the effect of psychosocial interventions (Semple, Dunwoody et al. 2009). None of them could prove that psychosocial interventions have a positive impact on overall quality of life. The intervention did not significantly affect severity of anxiety or depression scores. They conclude that there is currently not enough evidence for the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions within the head and neck cancer patient population (Semple, Dunwoody et al. 2009). Thewes et al. (2014) specifically studied the effect of psychosocial interventions on coping with fears of recurrence. They found indications of the fact that focused behavioural therapy is beneficial to dealing with fears of recurrence (Thewes, Brebach et al. 2014).\u000DIn a systematic literature review, Shennan et al. (2011) evaluate the evidence for the use of mindfulness interventions in the population with a cancer diagnosis (Shennan, Payne et al. 2011). Thirteen studies are described, for which it must be noted that participants within the studies were primarily white, well-educated, middle-aged women. For three randomised and controlled studies the intervention groups were found to experience a reduction of stress, anxiety and distress. In addition, the intervention groups developed a more optimistic way of thinking (Lengacher, Johnson-Mallard et al. 2009, Br\u00E4nstr\u00F6m, Kvillemo et al. 2010, Foley, Baillie et al. 2010). Among the studies reviewed, no significant effects were found on improvement of quality of life (Shennan, Payne et al. 2011).\u000DThe effect of creative therapies for adults with a cancer diagnosis is assessed in a review by Wood and colleagues (Wood, Molassiotis et al. 2011), which includes 12 studies. Despite a great variety in methodologies, they find positive effects for the use of creative therapy. Some tendencies were seen that indicated improvement in quality of life, better coping and reduced distress (Wilson and Morris 2003, \u00D6ster, Svensk et al. 2006, Singer, G\u00F6tze et al. 2010). It should be noted, however, that all interventions were embedded in a multidisciplinary setting. The intervention groups consisted mostly of women with breast cancer, and long-term effects were not studied. Wood and colleagues recommend an investment in creative therapy as well as further research into its effects (Wood, Molassiotis et al. 2011).\u000DThe outcomes of the above-mentioned studies give both neutral and positive evidence for the effect of psychosocial guidance. It is interesting to see that a reduction in experienced stress, anxiety and distress apparently are not sufficient to affect a \u2018measurable\u2019 improvement in quality of life, which may say something about the sensitivity of the instruments used for measuring distress-related-quality of life. It has been shown before that study-specific questionnaires are indispensable in \u2018measuring\u2019 the effects of interventions in the head and neck area (Op de Coul, Ackerstaff et al. 2005). The research field of personalised psychosocial guidance after head and neck cancer is, after all, still in its infancy. More research with bigger cohorts and specific to the head-and-neck cancer population should be performed in order to objectify the effect of psychosocial interventions. The psychosocial guidance within the Head and Neck rehabilitation programme offered at the Netherlands Cancer Institute is embedded in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme. The effectiveness of a multidisciplinary method of working within oncological rehabilitation is discussed in paragraph 5.1.\u000D138\u000D