Skip to main content

Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review

Abstract

Background

Approximately 5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are part of a well-defined inherited genetic syndrome and up to approximately 30% of these cases have a clinically defined familial basis. Psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer address aspects mainly focused on affective, cognitive and behavioural outcomes. The present review aims to systematically map out the available psychosocial interventions for individuals with a family history of CRC and describe the current state of the research.

Methods

An extensive electronic search was conducted to investigate the literature published until June 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of quantitative studies published in English that explored the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC, clearly defined the psychosocial intervention offered and included participants with a family history of CRC.

Results

The analysis included 52 articles. Genetic counselling, educational interventions, psychological interventions and multimodal interventions were identified across the studies. In terms of diagnoses, Lynch Syndrome, Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, Familial Colorectal Cancer were the main conditions included in the studies. Affective, cognitive, behavioural aspects and quality of life emerged as the most frequently explored outcomes. The studies included individuals with both personal and familial history of CRC or family history alone.

Conclusions

Our rapid review provides an overview of the literature exploring the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC. The psychosocial interventions identified had an overwhelmingly positive impact across all types of outcomes measured. Genetic counselling appeared to be most beneficial, and this is expected as it is purposively designed to address genetic conditions. Further quantitative analysis of primary empirical research is needed to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of psychosocial interventions as well as the mechanisms through which they exert their effect.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent form of cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death [1]. A family history of CRC is known to be associated with an increased risk of developing CRC [2]. Approximately 5% of CRC cases are part of a well-defined inherited genetic syndrome [3] such as Lynch Syndrome (LS) and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP). Also, up to approximately 30% of the total cases of CRC have a clinically defined familial basis [3] and, for the purpose of this review, are clustered under the familial colorectal cancer label (fCRC).

Psychosocial interventions address various psychological and social aspects of a condition and can be delivered in a counselling format, as health education or with a focus on social support. In familial CRC, psychosocial interventions are usually focused on (1) affective outcomes such as distress, anxiety and depression in relation to cancer or genetic testing, (2) cognitive outcomes such as knowledge about cancer and genetics, risk perception, or decision making, (3) behavioural outcomes related to screening, surveillance, and genetic testing.

In the absence of a systematic review, it is difficult to distil the vast amount of publications looking at rather diverse psychosocial interventions targeting various psychological, familial or social aspects. The present study aims to systematically map out the available psychosocial interventions for individuals with a family history of CRC and the current state of the research, in order to identify possible gaps and discuss the potential impact of the interventions.

Methods

An extensive electronic search was conducted to investigate the literature published until June 2020. PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane databases were searched using the following keywords: colon cancer, colorectal cancer, bowel cancer, psychological intervention, psychosocial intervention, counselling, genetic counselling, psychoeducation, psychotherapy. The complete search syntax is presented in Table 1. Reference lists of the articles from the full text assessment phase were manually searched to identify additional studies.

Table 1 Search syntax

Inclusion criteria consisted of (1) quantitative studies published in English that (2) explored the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC, (3) clearly defined the psychosocial intervention offered, and (4) included participants with a family history of CRC. Studies were coded to identify: authors, year of publication, intervention type (genetic counselling, educational intervention, psychological intervention), study design (prospective, experimental), diagnosis (Lynch Syndrome, Familial Adenomatous Polyposis, familial Colorectal Cancer), cancer history (familial, personal), outcome types (affective, behavioural, cognitive, quality of life), providers’ background (genetic counsellor, medical genetics background, non-genetics medical background), intervention format (face-to-face, written, telephone), sample size and mean age of the participants. Two authors independently assessed the studies and extracted the relevant data.

Results

The literature search yielded 2702 articles. Based on the inclusion criteria, 59 publications were eligible for analysis. Of these, 7 were excluded due to multiple publications from the same cohort [4,5,6,7,8,9,10] (e.g. follow-up studies were available and data was more robust in the most recently published article or articles included secondary analyses). The quantitative analysis included 52 articles. Figure 1 shows the literature search flow diagram. The total number of participants included in the studies was 8643; of these, several participants are duplicates due to studies recruiting individuals from the same cohort but provided different interventions and/or measured different outcomes. Table 2. presents the coding and characteristics of the articles included in the review.

Fig. 1
figure1

Flow diagram

Table 2 Studies characteristics

Overview of findings

Three main types of psychosocial interventions were identified: genetic counselling, educational interventions, psychological interventions; for the purpose of this review, we categorised the various combinations of genetic counselling, educational, and psychological interventions as multimodal interventions. Figure 2a. presents the scaled Venn diagram of the interventions and their intersection represents the multimodal interventions. In terms of explored outcomes, we identified a wide range of affective, cognitive and behavioural outcomes either as a unique, stand-alone measure or in different combinations. Quality of life was one of the explored outcomes, but only in combinations with others. Figure 2b. shows the scaled Venn diagram of the explored outcomes and the intersections represent the different combinations found in the studies. In terms of diagnoses, LS was found in 25 studies, FAP in 2 studies, fCRC in 20 studies and combinations of the three were found in 5 studies. Figure 2c. presents the scaled Venn diagram of the diagnoses and the intersections represent different combinations found in the studies. Individuals with a family history of CRC were included in 35 studies and individuals with both personal and familial history of CRC were included in 17 studies. Figure 2d. presents the scaled Venn diagram of individuals included in the studies based on their familial and personal history of CRC.

Fig. 2
figure2

Venn diagrams

Genetic counselling

Genetic counselling is the process of “helping people understand and adapt to the medical, psychological and familial implications of genetic contributions to disease. This process integrates the following: (1) interpretation of family and medical histories to assess the chance of disease occurrence or recurrence; (2) education about inheritance, testing, management, prevention, resources and research; (3) counselling to promote informed choices and adaptation to the risk or condition” [63]. Genetic counselling was investigated in 23 studies, almost half of the articles included in this review. In 15 studies, it was offered to unaffected family members at risk for CRC, and in 8 studies to individuals with a personal history of CRC. Affective outcomes (e.g. anxiety, depression, emotional distress, and specific fears) were investigated in 17 studies and they represent the most frequently explored outcome. Several studies [12, 27] reported an increase of the emotional distress immediately after a genetic test disclosure session; at follow up the reported scores tended to decrease back to baseline. Cognitive outcomes (e.g. knowledge about CRC and genetics, and perception of risk) were assessed in 12 studies. Behavioural outcomes (e.g. uptake of colonoscopy and gynaecological cancer screening) were addressed in 7 studies and quality of life in 5 studies. Genetic counselling was reported to have a positive impact on screening adherence for the mutation carriers, but non-carriers appeared to comply less with the screening recommendations. Genetic counselling was provided by a genetic counsellor in 11 studies and by a medical professional with background in genetics in 8 studies. In all studies genetic counselling was done face to face and it was usually supplemented by letters after the session. All but one study measured the impact of genetic counselling with a prospective design (e.g., baseline and post intervention questionnaires, without a control group).

Educational interventions

Educational interventions in cancer setting are aimed at providing information to insure sufficient knowledge about the condition, prevention, management of symptoms. Educational interventions were found in 16 studies, approximately a third of the articles analysed and were mostly focused on providing knowledge about the risk of developing CRC and prevention strategies such as diet, physical activity and screening. In 13 studies, educational interventions were offered to individuals with a family history of CRC. The majority of the educational interventions were offered to individuals with a personal or a family history of fCRC. Behavioural outcomes (e.g. uptake of CRC screening, diet, physical activity) were measured in 12 studies and represent the most frequently investigated outcome. Cognitive outcomes (e.g., knowledge, perceived severity, attitudes towards CRC, screening intention) were explored in 6 studies. Affective outcomes (e.g. anxiety, specific fears, depression, optimism) were explored in 5 studies. Educational interventions were mostly provided by health professionals without a background in genetics (11 studies). The model of delivery was the most diverse across all psychosocial interventions, using written (i.e., booklets, leaflets, CDs), telephone, face to face, and mixed methods. All studies were strongly supportive of the important role education has on screening uptake and reported positive results. The impact of educational interventions on affective outcomes was found to be less prominent.

Psychological interventions

The psychological interventions found in the studies were based on various psychotherapy paradigms such as acceptance and commitment therapy or motivational interviews, and were aimed at supporting positive life changes, improving uptake of screening, or alleviating emotional distress. Psychological interventions were found in a small proportion of studies (4 studies) and targeted affective (e.g., anxiety, depression, hope), behavioural (e.g., uptake of colonoscopy, food consumption and physical activity) and cognitive outcomes (e.g., knowledge). Three studies included unaffected individuals at risk for fCRC and one study included individuals with a familial history of LS or FAP. The intervention was offered by health professionals with various professional backgrounds such as oncology nursing, clinical psychology, surgery in 3 studies and by a genetic counsellor in 1 study. Psychological interventions were provided by telephone in 3 studies and face to face in 1 study. All studies exploring psychological interventions reported a positive impact in alleviating emotional distress.

Multimodal interventions

Multimodal interventions consist of different combinations of the 3 main psychosocial interventions, and were explored in 12 studies. The outcomes investigated were varied, including affective outcomes in 5 studies, cognitive outcomes in 7 studies, behavioural outcomes in 6 studies and quality of life in 2 studies. Six studies included participants with a family history of CRC and 6 included participants with both family and personal CRC history. Multimodal interventions were provided face to face, by professionals with a wide variety of backgrounds. Three studies compared a multimodal intervention with educational intervention therefore these studies are included in both categories. All studies providing multimodal interventions predominantly reported positive impact across all types of outcomes measured.

Discussions

Our analysis provides an overview of the literature exploring the impact of psychosocial interventions for familial CRC. The analysis suggests that psychosocial interventions - genetic counselling, educational and psychological interventions - have an overall positive impact on emotional, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. With an overview of the research available, we were also able to identify several research gaps and suggest potential strategies to address them.

Although psychosocial interventions generally reported a positive impact, it is essential for future research studies to rigorously assess their efficacy. Results from genetic counselling studies are undoubtedly positive: genetic counselling improves knowledge, emotional distress and screening adherence. In order to provide unequivocal empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of genetic counselling, it is essential for future research to encourage randomised clinical trials. Future research would also benefit from aligning in a more systematic manner the context and content of the interventions with the assessed outcomes. For instance, as hypothesised, educational interventions reported positive results on screening uptake. Yet, unsurprisingly, given the informative nature of the education interventions, their impact on affective outcomes was less prominent. This is in line with previous research in genetic counselling [64] and substantial empirical evidence from clinical psychology [65] showing that knowledge does not necessarily alleviate emotional distress. Undoubtedly, there is a clear need for more studies exploring the impact of psychological interventions for familial CRC. Psychological interventions have a strong empirical evidence base supporting their benefit in alleviating emotional distress for cancer in general [66], and various medical conditions [67], therefore only identifying 4 studies investigating psychological interventions was surprising. Although valuable in themselves, future research exploring multimodal interventions would also benefit from more clarity regarding the theory underlying the various psychosocial interventions, the expected mechanisms of change of the interventions offered and the specificity of the outcome measures used. That said, given the heterogeneity of the multimodal interventions, the rather modest impact reported was perhaps not surprising.

To conclude, the increased number of studies exploring psychosocial interventions for CRC and the positive impact reported was indeed encouraging. Mapping this research area also highlighted several limitations of the research in this field. The heterogeneity of the research designs, outcomes and measures used could benefit from a more programmatic approach. In order for psychosocial interventions to gather a critical mass of empirical evidence, to support their efficacy and clarify their mechanisms of change, robust research studies need to be designed and implemented.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information file.

References

  1. 1.

    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30 https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590.

  2. 2.

    Lowery JT, Ahnen DJ, Schroy PC, Hampel H, Baxter N, Boland CR, et al. Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review. Cancer. 2016;122(17):2633–45 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30080.

  3. 3.

    Jasperson KW, Tuohy TM, Neklason DW, Burt RW. Hereditary and familial Colon Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(6):2044–58 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2010.01.054.

  4. 4.

    Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Mecklin JP, Uutela A, Kääriäinen H. Comprehension of cancer risk one and 12 months after predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet. 2001;38(11):787–92. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.38.11.787.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Mecklin JP, Uutela A, Kääriäinen H. Psychological consequences of predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC): A prospective follow-up study. Int J Cancer. 2001;93(4):608–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.1372.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Aktan-Collan K, Mecklin JP, Järvinen H, Nyström-Lahti M, Peltomäki P, Söderling I, et al. Predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: uptake and long-term satisfaction. Int J Cancer. 2000;89(1):44–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(20000120)89:144::AID-IJC83.0.CO;2-3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Claes E, Denayer L, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Legius E. Predictive testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: motivation, illness representations and short-term psychological impact. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;55(2):265–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Codori AM, Petersen GM, Boyd PA, Brandt J, Giardiello FM. Genetic testing for cancer in children: short-term psychological effect. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 1996;150(11):1131–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1996.02170360021003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Eliezer D, Hadley DW, Koehly LM. Exploring psychological responses to genetic testing for Lynch syndrome within the family context. Psycho-Oncology. 2014;23(11):1292–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3551.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Glenn BA, Herrmann AK, Crespi CM, Mojica CM, Chang LC, Maxwell AE, et al. Changes in risk perceptions in relation to self-reported colorectal cancer screening among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer cases enrolled in a randomized trial. Health Psychol. 2011;30(4):481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024288.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Aktan-Collan K, Haukkala A, Pylvänäinen K, Järvinen HJ, Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, et al. Direct contact in inviting high-risk members of hereditary colon cancer families to genetic counselling and DNA testing. J Med Genet. 2007;44(11):732–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2007.051581.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Aktan-Collan K, Kääriäinen H, Järvinen H, Peltomäki P, Pylvänäinen K, Mecklin JP, et al. Psychosocial consequences of predictive genetic testing for lynch syndrome and associations to surveillance behaviour in a 7-year follow-up study. Familial Cancer. 2013;12(4):639–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-013-9628-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Anderson AE, Flores KG, Boonyasiriwat W, Gammon A, Kohlmann W, Birmingham WC, et al. Interest and informational preferences regarding genomic testing for modest increases in colorectal cancer risk. Public Health Genomics. 2014;17(1):48–60. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356567.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Armelao F, Orlandi PG, Tasini E, Franceschini G, Franch R, Paternolli C, et al. High uptake of colonoscopy in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer in a healthcare region: a population-based, prospective study. Endoscopy. 2010;42(01):15–21. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1215324.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Arver B, Haegermark A, Platten U, Lindblom A, Brandberg Y. Evaluation of psychosocial effects of pre-symptomatic testing for breast/ovarian and colon cancer pre-disposing genes: a 12-month follow-up. Familial Cancer. 2004;3(2):109–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FAME.0000039863.89137.f9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Baghianimoghadam, M. H., Ardakani, M. F., Akhoundi, M., Mortazavizadeh, M. R., Fallahzadeh, M. H., & Baghianimoghadam, B. (2012). Effect of education on knowledge, attitude and behavioral intention in family relative with colorectal cancer patients based on theory of planned behavior. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 13(12), 5995–5998,doi: https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.12.5995

  17. 17.

    Bastani R, Glenn BA, Maxwell AE, Ganz PA, Mojica CM, Alber S, et al. Randomized trial to increase colorectal cancer screening in an ethnically diverse sample of first-degree relatives. Cancer. 2015;121(17):2951–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bauer A, Riemann JF, Seufferlein T, Reinshagen M, Hollerbach S, Haug U, et al. Invitation to screening colonoscopy in the population at familial risk for colorectal cancer. Deutsches Aerzteblatt Online. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2018.0715.

  19. 19.

    Brain K, Sivell S, Bennert K, Howell L, France L, Jordan S, et al. An exploratory comparison of genetic counselling protocols for HNPCC predictive testing. Clin Genet. 2005;68(3):255–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2005.00491.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Burton-Chase AM, Hovick SR, Peterson SK, Marani SK, Vernon SW, Amos CI, et al. Changes in screening behaviors and attitudes toward screening from pre-test genetic counseling to post-disclosure in Lynch syndrome families. Clin Genet. 2013;83(3):215–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12091.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Claes E, Denayer L, Evers-Kiebooms G, Boogaerts A, Philippe K, Tejpar S, et al. Predictive testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: subjective perception regarding colorectal and endometrial cancer, distress, and health-related behavior at one year post-test. Genet Test. 2005;9(1):54–65. https://doi.org/10.1089/gte.2005.9.54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Codori AM, Waldeck T, Petersen GM, Miglioretti D, Trimbath JD, Tillery MA. Genetic counseling outcomes: perceived risk and distress after counseling for hereditary colorectal cancer. J Genet Couns. 2005;14(2):119–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-005-4062-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Codori AM, Zawacki KL, Petersen GM, Miglioretti DL, Bacon JA, Trimbath JD, et al. Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal cancer in children: long-term psychological effects. Am J Med Genet A. 2003;116(2):117–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.10926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Collins VR, Meiser B, Ukoumunne OC, Gaff C, John DJS, Halliday JL. The impact of predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: three years after testing. Genetics in Medicine. 2007;9(5):290–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31804b45db.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Collins V, Halliday J, Warren R, Williamson R. Assessment of education and counselling offered by a familial colorectal cancer clinic. Clin Genet. 2000;57(1):48–55. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.570107.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Collins V, Halliday J, Warren R, Williamson R. Cancer worries, risk perceptions and associations with interest in DNA testing and clinic satisfaction in a familial colorectal cancer clinic. Clin Genet. 2000;58(6):460–8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.580606.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Collins V, Meiser B, Gaff C, St John DJB, Halliday J. Screening and preventive behaviors one year after predictive genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;104(2):273–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dudok deWit, A. C., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Passchier, J., Niermeijer, M. F., & Tibben, A. Course of distress experienced by persons at risk for an autosomal dominant inheritable disorder participating in a predictive testing program: an explorative study. Psychosom Med. 1998;60(5):543–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Esplen MJ, Harrington S, Leung YW, Aronson M, Rothenmund H, Semotiuk K, et al. Telephone versus in-person colorectal cancer risk and screening intervention for first-degree relatives: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2019;125(13):2272–82 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32032.

  30. 30.

    Glanz K, Steffen AD, Taglialatela LA. Effects of colon cancer risk counseling for first-degree relatives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2007;16(7):1485–91. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gritz ER, Peterson SK, Vernon SW, Marani SK, Baile WF, Watts BG, et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(9):1902–10. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Gritz ER, Vernon SW, Peterson SK, Baile WF, Marani SK, Amos CI, et al. Distress in the cancer patient and its association with genetic testing and counseling for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Cancer Res Ther Control. 1999;8:35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hadley DW, Ashida S, Jenkins JF, Calzone KA, Kirsch IR, Koehly LM. Colonoscopy use following mutation detection in Lynch syndrome: exploring a role for cancer screening in adaptation. Clin Genet. 2011;79(4):321–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01622.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Hadley DW, Jenkins JF, Dimond E, de Carvalho M, Kirsch I, Palmer CG. Colon cancer screening practices after genetic counseling and testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(1):39–44. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hadley DW, Jenkins JF, Steinberg SM, Liewehr D, Moller S, Martin JC, et al. Perceptions of cancer risks and predictors of colon and endometrial cancer screening in women undergoing genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(6):948–54. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.0575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Halbert CH, Lynch H, Lynch J, Main D, Kucharski S, Rustgi AK, et al. Colon cancer screening practices following genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) mutations. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(17):1881–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.17.1881.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hasenbring MI, Kreddig N, Deges G, Epplen JT, Kunstmann E, Stemmler S, et al. Psychological impact of genetic counseling for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: the role of cancer history, gender, age, and psychological distress. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers. 2011;15(4):219–25. https://doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2010.0165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Hawkes AL, Patrao TA, Green A, Aitken JF. CanPrevent: a telephone-delivered intervention to reduce multiple behavioural risk factors for colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2012;12(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-560.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ho SMY, Ho JWC, Pau BKY, Hui BPH, Wong RSM, Chu ATW. Hope-based intervention for individuals susceptible to colorectal cancer: a pilot study. Familial Cancer. 2012;11(4):545–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-012-9545-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ingrand I, Defossez G, Richer JP, Tougeron D, Palierne N, Letard JC, et al. Colonoscopy uptake for high-risk individuals with a family history of colorectal neoplasia: A multicenter, randomized trial of tailored counseling versus standard information. Medicine. 2016;95(33):e4303. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Johnson KA, Trimbath JD, Petersen GM, Griffin CA, Giardiello FM. Impact of genetic counseling and testing on colorectal Cancer screening behavior. Genet Test. 2002;6(4):303–6 https://doi.org/10.1089/10906570260471831.

  42. 42.

    Keller M, Jost R, Haunstetter CM, Kienle P, Knaebel HP, Gebert J, et al. Comprehensive genetic counseling for families at risk for HNPCC: impact on distress and perceptions. Genet Test. 2002;6(4):291–302. https://doi.org/10.1089/10906570260471822.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Keller M, Jost R, Haunstetter CM, Sattel H, Schroeter C, Bertsch U, et al. Psychosocial outcome following genetic risk counselling for familial colorectal cancer. A comparison of affected patients and family members. Clin Genet. 2008;74(5):414–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2008.01089.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kinney AY, Boonyasiriwat W, Walters ST, Pappas LM, Stroup AM, Schwartz MD, et al. Telehealth personalized cancer risk communication to motivate colonoscopy in relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: the family CARE randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(7):654–62. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.51.6765.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Loader S, Shields C, Rowley PT. Impact of genetic counseling and DNA testing on individuals with colorectal cancer with a positive family history: a population-based study. Genet Test. 2005;9(4):313–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/gte.2005.9.313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Lowery JT, Horick N, Kinney AY, Finkelstein DM, Garrett K, Haile RW, et al. A randomized trial to increase colonoscopy screening in members of high-risk families in the colorectal cancer family registry and cancer genetics network. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014;23(4):601–10. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Lynch HT, Lemon SJ, Karr B, Franklin B, Lynch JF, Watson P, et al. Etiology, natural history, management and molecular genetics of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndromes): genetic counseling implications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1997;6(12):987–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Manne SL, Coups EJ, Markowitz A, Meropol NJ, Haller D, Jacobsen PB, et al. A randomized trial of generic versus tailored interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among intermediate risk siblings. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(2):207–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9103-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Manne SL, Meropol NJ, Weinberg DS, Vig H, Catts ZAK, Manning C, et al. Facilitating informed decisions regarding microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(8):1366–72. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.0399.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    McClish D, Carcaise-Edinboro P, Esinhart H, Wilson DB, Bean MK. Differences in response to a dietary intervention between the general population and first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46(5):376–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    McGowan EL, Prapavessis H, Campbell N, Gray C, Elkayam J. The effect of a multifaceted efficacy intervention on exercise behavior in relatives of colon cancer patients. Int J Behav Med. 2012;19(4):550–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-011-9191-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Meiser B, Collins V, Warren R, Gaff C, St John DJB, Young MA, et al. Psychological impact of genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Genet. 2004;66(6):502–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2004.00339.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Murakami Y, Okamura H, Sugano K, Yoshida T, Kazuma K, Akechi T, et al. Psychologic distress after disclosure of genetic test results regarding hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101(2):395–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Pieterse AH, Ausems MG, Van Dulmen AM, Beemer FA, Bensing JM. Initial cancer genetic counseling consultation: change in counselees cognitions and anxiety, and association with addressing their needs and preferences. Am J Med Genet A. 2005;137(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.30839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Rawl SM, Champion VL, Scott LL, Zhou H, Monahan P, Ding Y, et al. A randomized trial of two print interventions to increase colon cancer screening among first-degree relatives. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(2):215–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2008.01.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Rawl SM, Christy SM, Monahan PO, Ding Y, Krier C, Champion VL, et al. Tailored telephone counseling increases colorectal cancer screening. Health Educ Res. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyv021.

  57. 57.

    Rimes KA, Salkovskis PM, Jones L, Lucassen AM. Applying a cognitive behavioral model of health anxiety in a cancer genetics service. Health Psychol. 2006;25(2):171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.2.171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Salimzadeh H, Khabiri R, Khazaee-pool M, Salimzadeh S, Delavari A. Motivational interviewing and screening colonoscopy in high-risk individuals. A randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(6):1082–7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.01.015.

  59. 59.

    Shiloh S, Koehly L, Jenkins J, Martin J, Hadley D. Monitoring coping style moderates emotional reactions to genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a longitudinal study. Psycho-Oncology. 2008;17(8):746–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1338.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Stephens JH, Moore JWE. Can targeted intervention in CRC patients’ relatives influence screening behaviour? A pilot study. Color Dis. 2008;10(2):179–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01258.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Voorwinden JS, Jaspers JP. Prognostic factors for distress after genetic testing for hereditary cancer. J Genet Couns. 2015:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9894-9.

  62. 62.

    Wakefield CE, Meiser B, Homewood J, Ward R, O'Donnell S, Kirk J. Randomized trial of a decision aid for individuals considering genetic testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer risk. Cancer. 2008;113(5):956–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Resta R, Biesecker BB, Bennett RL, Blum S, Estabrooks Hahn S, Strecker MN, Williams JL. A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of genetic counselors’ task force report. J Genet Couns. 2006;15(2):77–83 10.1007/s10897-005-9014-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Brédart A, Kop J-L, De Pauw A, Caron O, Fajac A, Noguès C, et al. Effect on perceived control and psychological distress of genetic knowledge in women with breast cancer receiving a BRCA1/2 test result. Breast. 2017;31:121–7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.10.024.

  65. 65.

    Dryden, W. (2003). Rational emotive behaviour therapy: theoretical developments. Hove ; New York: Brunner-Routledge.

  66. 66.

    Li Z, Li Y, Guo L, Li M, Yang K. Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for mental illness in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Pract. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13982.

  67. 67.

    Mikolasek M, Berg J, Witt CM, Barth J. Effectiveness of mindfulness- and relaxation-based eHealth interventions for patients with medical conditions: a systematic review and synthesis. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2017;25(1):1–16 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-017-9679-7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Literature search and analysis were performed by AC, RM, AB. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AC and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramona Moldovan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ciucă, A., Moldovan, R. & Băban, A. Mapping psychosocial interventions in familial colorectal cancer: a rapid systematic review. BMC Cancer 22, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-09086-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-09086-8

Keywords

  • Psychosocial interventions
  • Genetic counselling
  • Familial colorectal cancer
  • Systematic review