BACKGROUND:Fatigue and emotional reactivity are common among women suffering from breast cancer and might detrimentally affect these women's quality of life. This study evaluates if the stress management delivered either in a group or individual setting would improve fatigue and emotional reactivity among women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Participants (n = 304) who reported elevated levels of distress at three-month post-inclusion were randomised between stress management in a group (GSM) (n = 77) or individual (ISM) (n = 78) setting. Participation was declined by 149 women. Participants completed the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and the Everyday Life Stress Scale (ELSS) at the time of inclusion, 3- and 12-month post-inclusion. Analyses were made according to intention to treat and per-protocol principles. Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine differences between the two intervention groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the GSM and ISM groups on fatigue or emotional reactivity. In addition, there were no changes over time for these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the two intervention arms with reference to fatigue or emotional reactivity; however, a clinically interesting finding was the low number of women who were interested in participating in a psychosocial intervention. This finding may have clinical implications when psychosocial support is offered to women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer and also in the planning of future studies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Fatigue and emotional reactivity are common among women suffering from breast cancer and might detrimentally affect these women's quality of life. This study evaluates if the stress management delivered either in a group or individual setting would improve fatigue and emotional reactivity among women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Participants (n = 304) who reported elevated levels of distress at three-month post-inclusion were randomised between stress management in a group (GSM) (n = 77) or individual (ISM) (n = 78) setting. Participation was declined by 149 women. Participants completed the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and the Everyday Life Stress Scale (ELSS) at the time of inclusion, 3- and 12-month post-inclusion. Analyses were made according to intention to treat and per-protocol principles. Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine differences between the two intervention groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the GSM and ISM groups on fatigue or emotional reactivity. In addition, there were no changes over time for these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the two intervention arms with reference to fatigue or emotional reactivity; however, a clinically interesting finding was the low number of women who were interested in participating in a psychosocial intervention. This finding may have clinical implications when psychosocial support is offered to women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer and also in the planning of future studies.
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Maxime Salmon; Myriam Blanchin; Christine Rotonda; Francis Guillemin; Véronique Sébille Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 4.452