BACKGROUND: Young adult cancer survivors face a number of increased medical and psychosocial risks, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and emotional distress. Although behavioral strategies, such as exercise, may diminish some of these risks, few behavioral interventions have been developed for this population. PURPOSE: As a first step toward developing interventions specifically for young survivors, we conducted a qualitative study of their intervention-related preferences. A key objective was to identify the preferred format for delivering interventions (e.g., face-to-face, online). METHOD: In-depth, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 young adult cancer survivors between the ages of 18 and 39. This research was conducted in Rhode Island, USA. RESULTS: Participants identified advantages and disadvantages to a variety of intervention formats including: telephone-based, print-based, computer-based, and several types of face-to-face interventions. The dominant theme that emerged was that interventions developed for young adult cancer survivors should take into account their multiple competing needs and obligations (e.g., work, family). Two closely related subthemes were: (1) the importance of developing interventions that are convenient and (2) the need for interventions that provide social support. Interventions for this population may be most successful if they take into account these themes. CONCLUSION: Data indicate that young adult cancer survivors have some unique needs (e.g., multiple competing demands of young adulthood) and preferences (e.g., comfort with remotely delivered interventions) that differentiate them from older cancer survivors. Thus, young survivors would be best served by interventions designed to specifically target this population.
BACKGROUND: Young adult cancer survivors face a number of increased medical and psychosocial risks, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and emotional distress. Although behavioral strategies, such as exercise, may diminish some of these risks, few behavioral interventions have been developed for this population. PURPOSE: As a first step toward developing interventions specifically for young survivors, we conducted a qualitative study of their intervention-related preferences. A key objective was to identify the preferred format for delivering interventions (e.g., face-to-face, online). METHOD: In-depth, semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 young adult cancer survivors between the ages of 18 and 39. This research was conducted in Rhode Island, USA. RESULTS:Participants identified advantages and disadvantages to a variety of intervention formats including: telephone-based, print-based, computer-based, and several types of face-to-face interventions. The dominant theme that emerged was that interventions developed for young adult cancer survivors should take into account their multiple competing needs and obligations (e.g., work, family). Two closely related subthemes were: (1) the importance of developing interventions that are convenient and (2) the need for interventions that provide social support. Interventions for this population may be most successful if they take into account these themes. CONCLUSION: Data indicate that young adult cancer survivors have some unique needs (e.g., multiple competing demands of young adulthood) and preferences (e.g., comfort with remotely delivered interventions) that differentiate them from older cancer survivors. Thus, young survivors would be best served by interventions designed to specifically target this population.
Authors: Jürgen Rehm; Dolly Baliunas; Guilherme L G Borges; Kathryn Graham; Hyacinth Irving; Tara Kehoe; Charles D Parry; Jayadeep Patra; Svetlana Popova; Vladimir Poznyak; Michael Roerecke; Robin Room; Andriy V Samokhvalov; Benjamin Taylor Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Lois B Travis; Deirdre Hill; Graça M Dores; Mary Gospodarowicz; Flora E van Leeuwen; Eric Holowaty; Bengt Glimelius; Michael Andersson; Eero Pukkala; Charles F Lynch; David Pee; Susan A Smith; Mars B Van't Veer; Timo Joensuu; Hans Storm; Marilyn Stovall; John D Boice; Ethel Gilbert; Mitchell H Gail Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-10-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lari Wenzel; Israel DeAlba; Rana Habbal; Brenda Coffey Kluhsman; Diane Fairclough; Linda U Krebs; Hoda Anton-Culver; Ross Berkowitz; Noreen Aziz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alexandra W van den Belt-Dusebout; Janine Nuver; Ronald de Wit; Jourik A Gietema; Wim W ten Bokkel Huinink; Patrick T R Rodrigus; Erik C Schimmel; Berthe M P Aleman; Flora E van Leeuwen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kerry S Courneya; Christopher M Sellar; Clare Stevinson; Margaret L McNeely; Christine M Friedenreich; Carolyn J Peddle; Sanraj Basi; Neil Chua; Keith Tankel; Alex Mazurek; Tony Reiman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sharyl J Nass; Lynda K Beaupin; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Karen Fasciano; Patricia A Ganz; Brandon Hayes-Lattin; Melissa M Hudson; Brenda Nevidjon; Kevin C Oeffinger; Ruth Rechis; Lisa C Richardson; Nita L Seibel; Ashley W Smith Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-01-07
Authors: Marie Barnett; Glynnis McDonnell; Antonio DeRosa; Tammy Schuler; Errol Philip; Lisa Peterson; Kaitlin Touza; Sabrina Jhanwar; Thomas M Atkinson; Jennifer S Ford Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Nicole M Alberts; Heather D Hadjistavropoulos; Nickolai Titov; Blake F Dear Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Carmina G Valle; Deborah F Tate; Deborah K Mayer; Marlyn Allicock; Jianwen Cai Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.223