↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

7 tweeters
1 Facebook page
1 Wikipedia page


93 Dimensions

Readers on

361 Mendeley
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 361 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 357 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 17%
Researcher 50 14%
Student > Bachelor 46 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 12%
Student > Postgraduate 28 8%
Other 72 20%
Unknown 62 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 29%
Psychology 83 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 14%
Social Sciences 18 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Other 29 8%
Unknown 69 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
of 18,845,687 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 244,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,845,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 244,735 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.