@article{discovery10113092,
            year = {2020},
           title = {Moderators of the effect of psychosocial interventions on fatigue in women with breast cancer and men with prostate cancer: Individual patient data meta-analyses},
       publisher = {WILEY},
         journal = {Psycho-Oncology},
          number = {11},
           month = {November},
           pages = {1772--1785},
          volume = {29},
            note = {This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.},
             url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5522},
            issn = {1099-1611},
          author = {Abrahams, HJG and Knoop, H and Schreurs, M and Aaronson, NK and Jacobsen, PB and Newton, RU and Courneya, KS and Aitken, JF and Arving, C and Brandberg, Y and Chambers, SK and Gielissen, MFM and Glimelius, B and Goedendorp, MM and Graves, KD and Heiney, SP and Horne, R and Hunter, MS and Johansson, B and Northouse, LL and Oldenburg, HSA and Prins, JB and Savard, J and van Beurden, M and van den Berg, SW and Verdonck-de Leeuw, IM and Buffart, LM},
        abstract = {Objective:
Psychosocial interventions can reduce cancer-related fatigue effectively. However, it is still unclear if intervention effects differ across subgroups of patients. These meta-analyses aimed at evaluating moderator effects of (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) clinical characteristics, (c) baseline levels of fatigue and other symptoms, and (d) intervention-related characteristics on the effect of psychosocial interventions on cancer-related fatigue in patients with non-metastatic breast and prostate cancer. /

Methods:
Data were retrieved from the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) consortium. Potential moderators were studied with meta-analyses of pooled individual patient data from 14 randomized controlled trials through linear mixed-effects models with interaction tests. The analyses were conducted separately in patients with breast (n = 1091) and prostate cancer (n = 1008). /

Results:
Statistically significant, small overall effects of psychosocial interventions on fatigue were found (breast cancer: {\ensuremath{\beta}} = ?0.19 [95\% confidence interval (95\%CI) = ?0.30; ?0.08]; prostate cancer: {\ensuremath{\beta}} = ?0.11 [95\%CI = ?0.21; ?0.00]). In both patient groups, intervention effects did not differ significantly by sociodemographic or clinical characteristics, nor by baseline levels of fatigue or pain. For intervention-related moderators (only tested among women with breast cancer), statistically significant larger effects were found for cognitive behavioral therapy as intervention strategy ({\ensuremath{\beta}} = ?0.27 [95\%CI = ?0.40; ?0.15]), fatigue-specific interventions ({\ensuremath{\beta}} = ?0.48 [95\%CI = ?0.79; ?0.18]), and interventions that only targeted patients with clinically relevant fatigue ({\ensuremath{\beta}} = ?0.85 [95\%CI = ?1.40; ?0.30]). /

Conclusions:
Our findings did not provide evidence that any selected demographic or clinical characteristic, or baseline levels of fatigue or pain, moderated effects of psychosocial interventions on fatigue. A specific focus on decreasing fatigue seems beneficial for patients with breast cancer with clinically relevant fatigue.},
        keywords = {breast cancer, cancer, fatigue, individual patient data meta-analysis, moderators, oncology, prostate cancer, psycho-oncology, psychosocial interventions}
}