The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations
Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations
Background: Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched.

Data sources: Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015).

Review methods: Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost–consequence case studies
were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines.

Objectives: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom.

Results: From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.96 to –0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all of the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD –0.06, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD –0.04 95% CI –0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis
suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW.

Limitation: Difficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure.

Conclusions: Overall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343.

Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
1366-5278
27
NIHR Journals Library
Nyssen, Olga
a9180b76-fecf-4f6c-837f-0ec94650c52e
Taylor, Stephanie
094b43cd-73d8-4e26-b408-428c4806a177
Wong, Geoff
ac4a1787-d2cb-48e7-9060-81d89dd6ce6f
Steed, Elizabeth
9384fd39-8fcd-4255-8010-9730968c15bd
Bourke, Liam
2688f8d1-e1c8-4a37-a2c7-bfa16165b80d
Lord, Joanne
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Ross, Carol
cb329f04-8586-44be-8ab8-cf4bada5f287
Hayman, Sheila
96198662-a7ae-47e5-ab2c-9d84de5beaed
Field, Victoria
d382550d-8f01-4976-91ad-5eb1a07d1b87
Higgins, Ailish
b2abbd38-82b8-4e3e-bbd8-785001f9d2dc
Greenhalgh, Trisha
bdd27a5d-1fdb-453b-9c12-28241cf5dcdc
Meads, Catherine
df289e59-e0c4-41fe-b782-a836f2d7915b
Nyssen, Olga
a9180b76-fecf-4f6c-837f-0ec94650c52e
Taylor, Stephanie
094b43cd-73d8-4e26-b408-428c4806a177
Wong, Geoff
ac4a1787-d2cb-48e7-9060-81d89dd6ce6f
Steed, Elizabeth
9384fd39-8fcd-4255-8010-9730968c15bd
Bourke, Liam
2688f8d1-e1c8-4a37-a2c7-bfa16165b80d
Lord, Joanne
fd3b2bf0-9403-466a-8184-9303bdc80a9a
Ross, Carol
cb329f04-8586-44be-8ab8-cf4bada5f287
Hayman, Sheila
96198662-a7ae-47e5-ab2c-9d84de5beaed
Field, Victoria
d382550d-8f01-4976-91ad-5eb1a07d1b87
Higgins, Ailish
b2abbd38-82b8-4e3e-bbd8-785001f9d2dc
Greenhalgh, Trisha
bdd27a5d-1fdb-453b-9c12-28241cf5dcdc
Meads, Catherine
df289e59-e0c4-41fe-b782-a836f2d7915b

Nyssen, Olga, Taylor, Stephanie, Wong, Geoff, Steed, Elizabeth, Bourke, Liam, Lord, Joanne, Ross, Carol, Hayman, Sheila, Field, Victoria, Higgins, Ailish, Greenhalgh, Trisha and Meads, Catherine (2016) Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations ((HTA) Journal Series, , (doi:10.3310/hta20270), 27, 20) Southampton, GB. NIHR Journals Library 410pp.

Record type: Monograph (Project Report)

Abstract

Background: Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched.

Data sources: Databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, were searched from inception to March 2013 (updated January 2015).

Review methods: Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using RevMan version 5.2.6 (RevMan 2012, The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Costs were estimated from a UK NHS perspective and three cost–consequence case studies
were prepared. Realist synthesis followed Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards guidelines.

Objectives: To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term conditions (LTCs) compared with no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom.

Results: From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full-text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (59 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW; these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable or unreported quality. Overall, there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): human immunodeficiency virus (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); and chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity [n = 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.96 to –0.26] in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there were either no data, or sparse data with no or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all of the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated emotional writing had any effect on depression at short- (n = 1563, SMD –0.06, 95% CI –0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity) or long-term (n = 778, SMD –0.04 95% CI –0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow-up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, no studies reported cost-effectiveness and 12 studies reported resource use; and meta-analysis
suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist synthesis findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW.

Limitation: Difficulties with developing realist synthesis programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure.

Conclusions: Overall, there is little evidence to support the therapeutic effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focused on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003343.

Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Text
FullReport-hta20270.pdf - Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: April 2016
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 392720
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/392720
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: d8a1440c-3f34-4b9d-b438-23a8855d8a8f
ORCID for Joanne Lord: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1086-1624

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 15 Apr 2016 13:27
Last modified: 07 Oct 2020 02:08

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Olga Nyssen
Author: Stephanie Taylor
Author: Geoff Wong
Author: Elizabeth Steed
Author: Liam Bourke
Author: Joanne Lord ORCID iD
Author: Carol Ross
Author: Sheila Hayman
Author: Victoria Field
Author: Ailish Higgins
Author: Trisha Greenhalgh
Author: Catherine Meads

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×