Background: In recent years, authors have repeatedly reported on the significance of social support in cancer survival. Although overall the studies appear to be convincing, little is known about which types of social support promote better survival rates, and which subgroups of cancer patients are more susceptible to the benefits of it. The aim of this study was to identify, organize, and examine studies reporting on the significance of social support in cancer survival.Methods: The PubMed, CINAHL and EBSCO databases were searched using the keywords social support/marital status, cancer, and survival/mortality. Where possible we used a meta‐analytical approach, specifically a random effect model, in order to combine the results of the hazard ratios in studies from which this information could be obtained. When interpreting clinical relevance, we used the number needed to treat (NNT).Results: Better survival was observed in married patients when compared to unmarried (single, never‐married, divorced/separated, and widowed) in overall and cancer‐specific survival. Gender group differences showed that the association was statistically significant only in cancer‐specific survival when comparing divorced/separated male and female cancer patients (p < 0.001), thus confirming results from the previous meta‐analysis.Conclusions: Being unmarried is associated with significantly worse overall and cancer‐specific survival. The most vulnerable group found in our study were divorced/separated men. The results of this review can motivate physicians, oncologists, and other healthcare professionals to be aware of the importance of patients' social support, especially in the identified sub‐group.

Background: Currently, there are eight meta‐analyses that address the question whether psychosocial intervention can prolong survival with widely disparate conclusions. One reason for inconsistent findings may be the methods by which previous meta‐analyses were conducted.Methods: Databases were searched to identify valid randomized controlled trials that compared psychosocial intervention with usual care. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals were pooled to estimate the strength of the treatment effect on survival time, and z‐tests were performed to assess possible heterogeneity of effect sizes associated with different patient and treatment characteristics.Results: Twelve trials involving 2439 cancer patients that met screening criteria were included. The overall effect favored the treatment group with a HR of 0.71 (95% Cl 0.58‐0.88; P = 0.002). An effect size favoring treatment group was observed in studies sampling lower vs higher percentage of married patients’ (NNT = 4.3 vs NNT = 15.4), when Cognitive‐Behavioral Therapy was applied at early vs late cancer stage (NNT = 2.3 vs NNT = −28.6), and among patients’ older vs younger than 50 (NNT = 4.2 vs NNT = −20.5).Conclusions: Psychosocial interventions may have an important effect on survival. Reviewed interventions appear to be more effective in unmarried patients, patients who are older, and those with an early cancer stage who attend CBT. Limitations of previous meta‐analysis are discussed.

Introduction: Physician’s burnout has been recognized as an increasing and significant work-related syndrome, described by the combination of emotional exhaustion (EE) and depersonalization (D), together with low personal accomplishment (PA). It has many negative consequences on personal, organizational, and patient care levels. This systematic review aimed to analyze research articles where psychological interventions with elements of mindfulness (PIMs) were used to support physicians in order to reduce burnout and foster empathy and well-being. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in May 2019, within six electronic databases PubMed, EBSCOhost MEDLINE, PsycArticles, Cochrane Library, JSTOR, and Slovenian national library information system. Different combinations of boolean operators were used—mindfulness, empathy, medicine/family medicine/general practice/primary care, burnout, doctors/physicians, intervention, and support group. Additional articles were manually searched from the reference list of the included articles. Studies with other healthcare professionals (not physicians and residents) and/or medical students, and those where PIMs were applied for educational or patient’s treatment purposes were excluded. Results: Of 1194 studies identified, 786 screened and 139 assessed for eligibility, there were 18 studies included in this review. Regardless of a specific type of PIMs applied, results, in general, demonstrate a positive impact on empathy, well-being, and reduction in burnout in participating physicians. Compared with other recent systematic reviews, this is unique due to a broader selection of psychological interventions and emphasis on a sustained effect measurement. Conclusions: Given the pandemic of COVID-19, it is of utmost importance that this review includes also interventions based on modern information technologies (mobile apps) and can be used as an awareness-raising material for physicians providing information about feasible and easily accessible interventions for effective burnout prevention and/or reduction. Future research should upgrade self-reported data with objective psychological measures and address the question of which intervention offers more benefits to physicians.

The CTNNB1 Syndrome is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder associated with developmental delay, intellectual disability, and delayed or absent speech. The aim of the present study is to systematically review the available data on the prevalence of clinical manifestations and to evaluate the correlation between phenotype and genotype in published cases of patients with CTNNB1 Syndrome. Studies were identified by systematic searches of four major databases. Information was collected on patients’ genetic mutations, prenatal and neonatal problems, head circumference, muscle tone, EEG and MRI results, dysmorphic features, eye abnormalities, early development, language and comprehension, behavioral characteristics, and additional clinical problems. In addition, the mutations were classified into five groups according to the severity of symptoms. The study showed wide genotypic and phenotypic variability in patients with CTNNB1 Syndrome. The most common moderate-severe phenotype manifested in facial dysmorphisms, microcephaly, various motor disabilities, language and cognitive impairments, and behavioral abnormalities (e.g., autistic-like or aggressive behavior). Nonsense and missense mutations occurring in exons 14 and 15 were classified in the normal clinical outcome category/group because they had presented an otherwise normal phenotype, except for eye abnormalities. A milder phenotype was also observed with missense and nonsense mutations in exon 13. The autosomal dominant CTNNB1 Syndrome encompasses a wide spectrum of clinical features, ranging from normal to severe. While mutations cannot be more generally categorized by location, it is generally observed that the C-terminal protein region (exons 13, 14, 15) correlates with a milder phenotype.

Due to the expensive and time-consuming diagnostics, most general physicians do not use a standardized psychodiagnostic tool to detect depression and anxiety and often rely on their own judgment. This often leads to inaccuracy of identification of patients with mental disorders. To systematically review the literature of the 14-item resilience scale (RS-14) and offer directions for future studies. Fourteen studies that included a translated/validated RS-14 regardless of the sample were included through Medline and CINAHL databases and the following questions were addressed: (i) What are the factor structure, internal consistency and repeatability of the RS-14? (ii) Is RS-14 concordant with other scales for measuring resilience, and what is the concurrent validity of this instrument? (iii) What are the critiques, conclusions and limitations of previous studies? Most factor analyses demonstrated a one-factor solution and confirmed 14-item scale. Cronbach’s α for was high (M = 0.88); the test–retest reliability was satisfactory in three (0.70 < r > 0.83) out of four studies (r = 0.49). Results of concurrent validity showed positive correlation with some variables, including quality of life and a negative correlation with depression and anxiety. Among other limitations, the biggest drawback was a non-representative sample. RS-14 was found to perform well in clinical and non-clinical sample. Due to its wide use of population, time efficiency and good results on concurrent validity, we suggest future studies to examine whether RS-14 has a potential to serve as a first distress and quality of life screening tool in the family medicine practices.