3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pilot testing an app-based stress management intervention for cancer survivors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Psychosocial eHealth intervention programs for cancer survivors are still in their infancy, with inconsistent findings so far in the scientific literature. The aim of this study was to explore system use, usefulness, ease of use, and preliminary effects of Stress Proffen, an app-based cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention for patients with cancer. A feasibility pilot project tested the intervention with cancer survivors ( N = 25). The intervention contained (a) one face-to-face introduction session, (b) 10 app-based modules with stress management educational material and exercises, and (c) one follow-up phone call. Post-intervention interviews were conducted and user log-data were extracted. Outcome measures—Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Anxiety and Depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL; SF-36), and Self-Regulatory Fatigue (SRF-18)—were completed at baseline and post-intervention. Participants were primarily women (84%), age 34–71 (mean 48) and represented a variety of cancer diagnoses (majority breast cancer: 40%). Twenty-two participants completed all (pre–post) questionnaires. Sixteen participants (67%) completed at least 7 of 10 modules within the 8-week study period. Post-intervention interviews described StressProffen as providing a new, appreciated, and easily accessible stress management tool for the cancer survivors. Dependent/paired t-tests showed significant pre–post intervention effects with significant decrease in stress ( p = .008), anxiety ( p = .019), and self-regulatory fatigue ( p = .025), and improved HRQoL (Role Physical, General Health, Vitality, and Role Emotional, all p’s <.01). App-based stress management interventions such as StressProffen can provide appreciated support for cancer survivors, should be easy to use, can provide significant stress reduction, and improve emotional well-being. Further testing in a randomized controlled trial is warranted and is in progress.

          Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0293961.

          Abstract

          An app-based stress-management program for patients with cancer was found to be easy to use and could provide significant stress reduction and improved emotional well-being.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Persuasive System Design Does Matter: A Systematic Review of Adherence to Web-Based Interventions

          Background Although web-based interventions for promoting health and health-related behavior can be effective, poor adherence is a common issue that needs to be addressed. Technology as a means to communicate the content in web-based interventions has been neglected in research. Indeed, technology is often seen as a black-box, a mere tool that has no effect or value and serves only as a vehicle to deliver intervention content. In this paper we examine technology from a holistic perspective. We see it as a vital and inseparable aspect of web-based interventions to help explain and understand adherence. Objective This study aims to review the literature on web-based health interventions to investigate whether intervention characteristics and persuasive design affect adherence to a web-based intervention. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies into web-based health interventions. Per intervention, intervention characteristics, persuasive technology elements and adherence were coded. We performed a multiple regression analysis to investigate whether these variables could predict adherence. Results We included 101 articles on 83 interventions. The typical web-based intervention is meant to be used once a week, is modular in set-up, is updated once a week, lasts for 10 weeks, includes interaction with the system and a counselor and peers on the web, includes some persuasive technology elements, and about 50% of the participants adhere to the intervention. Regarding persuasive technology, we see that primary task support elements are most commonly employed (mean 2.9 out of a possible 7.0). Dialogue support and social support are less commonly employed (mean 1.5 and 1.2 out of a possible 7.0, respectively). When comparing the interventions of the different health care areas, we find significant differences in intended usage (p = .004), setup (p < .001), updates (p < .001), frequency of interaction with a counselor (p < .001), the system (p = .003) and peers (p = .017), duration (F = 6.068, p = .004), adherence (F = 4.833, p = .010) and the number of primary task support elements (F = 5.631, p = .005). Our final regression model explained 55% of the variance in adherence. In this model, a RCT study as opposed to an observational study, increased interaction with a counselor, more frequent intended usage, more frequent updates and more extensive employment of dialogue support significantly predicted better adherence. Conclusions Using intervention characteristics and persuasive technology elements, a substantial amount of variance in adherence can be explained. Although there are differences between health care areas on intervention characteristics, health care area per se does not predict adherence. Rather, the differences in technology and interaction predict adherence. The results of this study can be used to make an informed decision about how to design a web-based intervention to which patients are more likely to adhere.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site.

            The goal of this project was to determine the prevalence of psychological distress among a large sample of cancer patients (n=4496). In addition, variations in distress among 14 cancer diagnoses were examined. The sample was extracted from a database that consists of 9000 patients who completed the Brief Symptom Inventory as a component of comprehensive cancer care. Relevant data points for each case included age, diagnosis, gender, insurance status, marital status, race and zip code. Simple frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency and variability were calculated. In addition, a univariate and multiple regression analysis was used to examine the relationships of these relevant variables to psychological distress. The overall prevalence rate of distress for this sample was 35.1%. The rate varied form 43.4% for lung cancer to 29.6% for gynecological cancers. While some rates were significantly different, diagnoses with a poorer prognosis and greater patient burden produced similar rates of distress. Pancreatic cancer patients produced the highest mean scores for symptoms such as anxiety and depression, while Hodgkin's patients exhibited the highest mean scores for hostility. These results offer vital support for the need to identify high-risk patients through psychosocial screening in order to provide early intervention. To simply perceive cancer patients as a homogeneous group is an erroneous assumption. Failure to detect and treat elevated levels of distress jeopardizes the outcomes of cancer therapies, decreases patients' quality of life, and increases health care costs. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychological, behavioral, and immune changes after a psychological intervention: a clinical trial.

              This randomized clinical trial tests the hypothesis that a psychological intervention can reduce emotional distress, improve health behaviors and dose-intensity, and enhance immune responses. We studied 227 women who were surgically treated for regional breast cancer. Before adjuvant therapy, women completed interviews and questionnaires assessing emotional distress, social adjustment, and health behaviors. A 60-mL blood sample was drawn for immune assays. Patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or assessment only group. The intervention was conducted in small patient groups, with one session per week for 4 months. The sessions included strategies to reduce stress, improve mood, alter health behaviors, and maintain adherence to cancer treatment and care. Reassessment occurred after completion of the intervention. As predicted, patients receiving the intervention showed significant lowering of anxiety, improvements in perceived social support, improved dietary habits, and reduction in smoking (all P <.05). Analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy dose-intensity revealed significantly more variability (ie, more dispersion in the dose-intensity values) for the assessment arm (P <.05). Immune responses for the intervention patients paralleled their psychological and behavioral improvements. T-cell proliferation in response to phytohemagglutinin and concanavalin A remained stable or increased for the Intervention patients, whereas both responses declined for Assessment patients; this effect was replicated across three concentrations for each assay (all P <.01). These data show a convergence of significant psychological, health behavior, and biologic effects after a psychological intervention for cancer patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Transl Behav Med
                Transl Behav Med
                tbm
                Translational Behavioral Medicine
                Oxford University Press (US )
                1869-6716
                1613-9860
                June 2020
                24 April 2019
                24 April 2019
                : 10
                : 3
                : 770-780
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Center for Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Care Research, Division of Medicine, Oslo University Hospital , Oslo, Norway
                [2 ] Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN, USA
                [3 ] Department of Behavioral Science, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky , Lexington, KY, USA
                [4 ] Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo , Oslo, Norway
                Author notes
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3897-7055
                Article
                ibz062
                10.1093/tbm/ibz062
                7413188
                31330023
                a8340da0-5a2b-4fb9-a7df-39cdc4277862
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                Funded by: Norwegian Cancer Society, DOI 10.13039/100008730;
                Award ID: 4602492-2013
                Funded by: Center for Shared Decision Making and Collaborative Care Research;
                Funded by: Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway;
                Award ID: 2016/14369
                Funded by: Oslo University Hospital Privacy Protection Committee/Institutional Review Board;
                Award ID: 2015/10204
                Categories
                Original Research
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860
                AcademicSubjects/SCI02170
                AcademicSubjects/MED00760

                Neurology
                stress management,cancer,ehealth,mhealth,psycho-oncology,user-centered design
                Neurology
                stress management, cancer, ehealth, mhealth, psycho-oncology, user-centered design

                Comments

                Comment on this article