Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41673256›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Psychosocial interventions indicate prolonged survival in cancer patients in a systematic review, meta-analysis, and multiverse meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kenji D Asakawa-Haas, David Spiegel, Lukas Bossert, Aleksandra Garic, Katrin Schwartz, Martin Voracek, Ulrich S Tran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kenji D Asakawa-HaasDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. kenji.asakawa.haas@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7168-6909
David SpiegelDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9476-9173
Lukas BossertDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4596-4308
Aleksandra GaricDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8587-668X
Katrin SchwartzDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3329-3757
Martin VoracekDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6109-6155
Ulrich S TranDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. ulrich.tran@univie.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6589-3167

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether psychosocial interventions containing active psychological components prolong survival in cancer patients has been studied for decades, yet findings from primary (RCTs) and secondary research (meta-analyses) remain inconclusive. Our preregistered systematic review, meta-analysis, and multiverse meta-analysis aimed to clarify this research question using contemporary methods of research synthesis. We searched Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Google Scholar for RCTs of structured psychosocial interventions for cancer patients published until October 17, 2025. We calculated the overall effect; assessed its robustness; estimated a median survival benefit, characterized the psychological components included in the interventions; examined risk of bias, study quality, meta-analytic post hoc power, and sponsorship bias; explored 25 substantive and methodological moderators; and considered publication bias as well as p-hacking. Using multiverse meta-analysis, we calculated multiple overall effects based on reasonable specifications employed in prior meta-analyses (descriptive analysis) and compared them with the 95% CI band of 1000 simulated overall effects assuming no true effect (inferential analysis). Psychosocial interventions, provided alongside medical treatment, demonstrated a small, positive and robust overall effect on survival in cancer patients, with an HR of 0.80, 95% CI [0.71, 0.90] across 32 RCTs comprising 5704 participants. Heterogeneity was moderate to substantial with an I² = 48% and a wide 95% PI (HR 0.49-1.29). Median survival time benefit was estimated at 3.9 months, 95% CI [ - 0.7, 8.5], based on data from 16 trials. The psychological components most frequently applied were educational, cognitive-behavioral, emotionally expressive, and group-based social support. Low average meta-analytic post hoc power (17%) likely contributed to inconsistent findings among trials. Multiverse meta-analysis confirmed the presence of a general overall survival effect and indicated that previously conflicting meta-analytic conclusions primarily stemmed from differences in effect size metrics and analytic decisions. Psychosocial (psychological) interventions appear to improve survival in cancer patients, with effect sizes comparable in magnitude to effects previously reported in the literature for medical cancer treatments such as chemo-, radio-, and hormone therapy. The certainty of evidence was rated moderate, primarily due to statistical heterogeneity, hence effects might not generalize equally to all populations. Considering survival impact, established psychological benefits, favorable safety profile, and comparatively low cost, the findings support a paradigm shift toward establishing psychosocial interventions alongside medical therapy as a standard component of comprehensive cancer care; potentially guiding future research and clinical practice.

Identifiers

PMID41673256
PMCPMC13005039

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.