11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Acceptability and Usefulness of a Dyadic, Tailored, Web-Based, Psychosocial and Physical Activity Self-Management Program (TEMPO): A Qualitative Study

      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

          Caregivers of men with prostate cancer report high burden, and there is a need to develop cost-effective programs to support them in their roles. This study reports on the acceptability of a dyadic, Tailored, w Eb-based, psychosocial and physical activity (PA) self- Management Pr Ogram called TEMPO. TEMPO was accessed by a convenience sample of 19 men with prostate cancer and their caregivers ( n = 18), as well as six health care professionals (HCPs). User feedback was gathered via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Most dyads were satisfied with TEMPO, particularly with the dyadic feature of TEMPO, the focus on goal setting to integrate self-management, and the extensive health library. The patients and caregivers motivated each other as they worked through TEMPO. Most goals to achieve during TEMPO pertained to increasing PA, followed by learning physical symptom management. One unanticipated benefit of TEMPO for the dyads was improved communication. HCPs agreed that TEMPO was a novel approach to online cancer self-management and they echoed the benefits reported by dyads. Key suggestions for improving TEMPO were to reduce repetition, tailor content, add more exercise ideas, and have more printing options. This study provides a strong foundation on which to plan a larger trial.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                13 October 2020
                October 2020
                : 9
                : 10
                : 3284
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2M7, Canada
                [2 ]St. Mary’s Research Centre, Montreal, QC H3T 1M5, Canada; jamie.schaffler@ 123456mail.mcgill.ca (J.L.S.); ekaterina.loban@ 123456mail.mcgill.ca (E.L.); karissaclayberg@ 123456gmail.com (K.C.)
                [3 ]Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC H2W 1S4, Canada; lindsay.duncan@ 123456mcgill.ca
                [4 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 1R8, Canada; janet.ellis@ 123456sunnybrook.ca
                [5 ]Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada; lauren.goldberg@ 123456sunnybrook.ca
                [6 ]Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3S 1Z1, Canada
                [7 ]Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada; john.robinson@ 123456albertahealthservices.ca
                [8 ]Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada; nculosre@ 123456ucalgary.ca
                [9 ]Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
                [10 ]Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB T2N 4N2, Canada
                [11 ]Departments of Surgery and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada; andrew.matthew@ 123456uhn.ca
                [12 ]Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2C1, Canada; daniel.santamina@ 123456uhn.ca
                [13 ]Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 2W6, Canada
                [14 ]Department of Clinical Trials & Clinical Research, BC Cancer—Victoria, Victoria, BC V8R 6V5, Canada; philip.pollock@ 123456bccancer.bc.ca (P.P.); speacock@ 123456bccrc.ca (S.P.)
                [15 ]Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3G 2M1, Canada; simon.tanguay@ 123456mcgill.ca
                [16 ]Division of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H4A 3J1, Canada; wassim.kassouf@ 123456muhc.mcgill.ca
                [17 ]Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, USA; paramita.chaudhuri@ 123456mcgill.ca
                [18 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
                [19 ]College of Nursing, University of Manitoba; Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada; anne_katz@ 123456umanitoba.ca
                [20 ]The Dr. Ernest W. Ramsey Manitoba Prostate Centre, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0V9, Canada
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: sylvie.lambert@ 123456mcgill.ca ; Tel.: +1-514-797-3762
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9202-9251
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-1656
                Article
                jcm-09-03284
                10.3390/jcm9103284
                7650635
                33066225
                ed9f95aa-2739-4f44-9635-155b50e6a2dc
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 02 September 2020
                : 10 October 2020
                Categories
                Article

                prostate cancer,cancer survivorship,cancer rehabilitation,self-management,caregivers,dyadic intervention

                Comments

                Comment on this article