You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Preparing patients for cancer chemotherapy: effect of coping preparation and relaxation interventions.
Abstract 1:
Sixty cancer chemotherapy patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: (a) relaxation training with guided relaxation imagery (RT), (b) general coping preparation package (PREP), (c) both RT and PREP, or (d) routine clinic treatment only. All patients were assessed on self-report, nurse observation, family observation, and physiological measures and were followed for five sequential chemotherapy treatments. Results indicate that the PREP intervention increased patients' knowledge of the disease and its treatment, reduced anticipatory side effects, reduced negative affect, and improved general coping. RT patients showed some decrease in negative affect and vomiting, but not as great as in past studies. The data suggest that a relatively simple, one-session coping preparation intervention can reduce many different types of distress associated with cancer chemotherapy and may be more effective than often-used behavioral relaxation procedures.


Title 2:
Effects of an education program on radiation oncology patients and families.
Abstract 2:
Patients and family members in a radiation oncology department participated in a study of a new education/orientation program. Information was presented in oral and in written form. After the intervention, orientation program participants did not differ significantly from control group members in state anxiety, general distress, treatment adherence, or knowledge of radiation therapy. Orientation group patients reported greater satisfaction with clinic care, and the orientation group was significantly more likely to utilize psychological counseling services within the clinic, as well as outside support. Discussion focused on possible explanations for the strikingly favorable program evaluations given by participants despite little evidence that the program was of significant benefit.


Title 3:
Reducing distress in cancer patients with an orientation program.
Abstract 3:
The purpose of this study was to test a brief orientation program for reducing anxiety, depressive symptoms, and overall distress in cancer patients at their initial clinic visit. One hundred and fifty consecutively referred patients seen in an oncology outpatient clinic were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control group. The intervention group received a clinic tour, general information about clinic operations, and a question and answer session with an oncology counselor. Outcome measures included the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Brief Profile of Mood States (POMS), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale, and an oncology clinic questionnaire which were administered at the initial clinic visit and follow-up. There were no statistically significant clinical or demographic differences between groups at initial assessment. At follow-up, the intervention group had lower state anxiety, lower overall distress, and fewer patients reporting depressive symptoms. Patients in the intervention group demonstrated significantly more knowledge about clinic operations and greater satisfaction with care. These data provide evidence that anxiety, distress and depressive symptoms can be reduced with an orientation program. This finding has particular relevance in the early stages of diagnosis where patients may suffer symptoms of anxiety and depression.


Title 4:
A randomised trial of two information packages distributed to new cancer patients before their initial appointment at a regional cancer centre.
Abstract 4:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which a new patient information package (NPIP) or a mini version of the same package (mini-NPIP) reduces emotional distress and meets the informational needs of patients arriving at a tertiary cancer centre for the first time. A comprehensive package, NPIP, consisting of procedural information regarding cancer centre location, description of the health care team, treatment services, research, educational activities, accommodation and community services provided at the centre; and a condensed version of the same package, mini-NPIP, were developed. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed breast, gynaecological, lung and prostate cancer, referred to the centre for the first time were prerandomised to receive NPIP, mini-NPIP or no information package. Patients randomised to NPIP or mini-NPIP were mailed the information package at least one week before their first appointment. On arrival at the centre, patients were administered the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) which measures psychological distress, and interviewed regarding preferences for information and acceptability of the information packages. Of 465 randomised patients, 161 were excluded post-randomisation and 304 completed the entire interview: 100 were randomised to the NPIP, 102 to the mini-NPIP and 102 to the control group. Emotional distress as measured by the BSI was similar for all groups (P = 0.98). Most patients preferred to receive the information (98%), receive it before the first appointment (84%) and by mail (79%). These preferences were more evident for those given the information packages. The majority of patients found the information packages easy to understand (88%) and useful (89%), and no differences were detected between packages. The cost of production and dissemination of NPIP was more than double the cost for mini-NPIP: $ 8.93 vs $ 3.98 (Canadian dollars) per patient. For patients presenting to a cancer centre for the first time, packages of procedural information do not appear to reduce psychological distress, but are preferred by patients. Given the cost of producing NPIP, mini-NPIP is the preferred approach.
This review has demonstrated the feasibility and some potential benefits of orientation interventions. Orientation interventions may reduce distress in patients, but the quality of the evidence is low. However, most of the other outcomes remain inconclusive (patient knowledge recall/ satisfaction). The majority of studies were subject to high risk of bias, and were likely to be insufficiently powered. Further well conducted and powered RCTs are required to provide evidence for determining the most appropriate intensity, nature, mode and resources for such interventions. Patient and carer-focused outcomes should be included.