PURPOSE: To determine 1-year outcomes of a four-component behavioral therapy (BT) sleep intervention (Individualized Sleep Promotion Plan [ISPP]) versus a healthy eating control (HEC) on cancer-related fatigue in women receiving breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy treatment (CTX). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 219 participants from 12 oncology clinics were randomly assigned in a clinical trial. Before CTX, research nurses coached intervention participants to develop a BT plan including stimulus control, modified sleep restriction, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. BT plans were revised before each CTX and 30, 60, and 90 days after the last CTX and reinforced 7 to 9 days later. HEC participants received nutritional information and equal attention. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Daily Diary, Wrist Actigraph, and Piper Fatigue Scale measures and Repeated Linear Mixed Model analysis following the Intent to Treat paradigm were used. RESULTS:Sleep quality differed over 1 years time (F [4,162] = 7.7, P < .001; by group, F [1,173] = 4.8, P = .029; and over time by group, F [4,162] = 3.3, P = .013). Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between groups at 90 days (P = .002) but not at 1 year (P = .052). Seven days of diary and actigraphy data did not corroborate with monthly reflections (PSQI). The night awakenings (Actigraph) pattern was significantly different by group over time (P = .046), with no differences between groups at 90 days or at 1 year. Fatigue was lower at 1 year than before CTX; no group effects were found. CONCLUSION: The BT group, on average, experienced significant improvement on global sleep quality compared with the HEC group, but not on objective sleep or fatigue outcomes.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine 1-year outcomes of a four-component behavioral therapy (BT) sleep intervention (Individualized Sleep Promotion Plan [ISPP]) versus a healthy eating control (HEC) on cancer-related fatigue in women receiving breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy treatment (CTX). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 219 participants from 12 oncology clinics were randomly assigned in a clinical trial. Before CTX, research nurses coached intervention participants to develop a BT plan including stimulus control, modified sleep restriction, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. BT plans were revised before each CTX and 30, 60, and 90 days after the last CTX and reinforced 7 to 9 days later. HEC participants received nutritional information and equal attention. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Daily Diary, Wrist Actigraph, and Piper Fatigue Scale measures and Repeated Linear Mixed Model analysis following the Intent to Treat paradigm were used. RESULTS: Sleep quality differed over 1 years time (F [4,162] = 7.7, P < .001; by group, F [1,173] = 4.8, P = .029; and over time by group, F [4,162] = 3.3, P = .013). Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between groups at 90 days (P = .002) but not at 1 year (P = .052). Seven days of diary and actigraphy data did not corroborate with monthly reflections (PSQI). The night awakenings (Actigraph) pattern was significantly different by group over time (P = .046), with no differences between groups at 90 days or at 1 year. Fatigue was lower at 1 year than before CTX; no group effects were found. CONCLUSION: The BT group, on average, experienced significant improvement on global sleep quality compared with the HEC group, but not on objective sleep or fatigue outcomes.
Authors: Helen G Mar Fan; Nadine Houédé-Tchen; Qi-Long Yi; Irene Chemerynsky; Fiona P Downie; Kathryn Sabate; Ian F Tannock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter Nieboer; Ciska Buijs; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Caroline Seynaeve; Louk V A M Beex; Elsken van der Wall; Dick J Richel; Marianne A Nooij; Emile E Voest; Pierre Hupperets; Nanno H Mulder; Winette T A van der Graaf; Els M TenVergert; Harm van Tinteren; Elisabeth G E de Vries Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael A Andrykowski; John E Schmidt; John M Salsman; Abbie O Beacham; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Oxana Palesh; Caroline Scheiber; Shelli Kesler; Richard Gevirtz; Charles Heckler; Joseph J Guido; Michelle Janelsins; Mallory G Cases; Bingjie Tong; Jessica M Miller; Nick G Chrysson; Karen Mustian Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Kristin M Phillips; Heather S Jim; Kristine A Donovan; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-02-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Michael R Irwin; Pamela Hinds; Andrew Miller; Ann Berger; Paul Jacobsen; Sonia Ancoli-Israel; Bryce B Reeve; Karen Mustian; Ann O'Mara; Jin-Shei Lai; Michael Fisch; David Cella Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Teresa L Simoneau; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson; Crystal Natvig; Kristin Kilbourn; Janet Spradley; Rachel Grzywa-Cobb; Samuel Philips; Peter McSweeney; Mark L Laudenslager Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Doris Howell; Thomas K Oliver; Sue Keller-Olaman; Judith Davidson; Sheila Garland; Charles Samuels; Josée Savard; Cheryl Harris; Michèle Aubin; Karin Olson; Jonathan Sussman; James Macfarlane; Claudette Taylor Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 3.603