Eniola T Obadina1, Lori L Dubenske2, Helene E McDowell2, Amy K Atwood2, Deborah K Mayer3, Ryan W Woods4, David H Gustafson2, Elizabeth S Burnside5. 1. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. 2. Center for Health Enhancement System Studies (CHESS), United States. 3. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States. Electronic address: EBurnside@uwhealth.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an online support tool can impact anxiety in women experiencing an abnormal mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an online support system using the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System (CHESS) designed for women experiencing an abnormal mammogram as a model. Our trial randomized 130 of these women to online support (the intervention group) or to a list of five commonly used Internet sites (the comparison group). Surveys assessed anxiety and breast cancer worry, and patient satisfaction at three important clinical time points: when women were notified of their abnormal mammogram, at the time of diagnostic imaging, and at the time of biopsy (if biopsy was recommended). RESULTS: Study participants in the intervention group showed a significant decrease in anxiety at the time of biopsy compared to the comparison group (p = 0.017). However, there was no significant difference in anxiety between the intervention group and the comparison group at the time of diagnostic work-up. We discontinued assessment of patient satisfaction after finding that many women had substantial difficulty answering the questions that referenced their physician, because they did not understand who their physician was for this process of care. CONCLUSION: The combination of the inability to identify the physician providing care during the mammography work-up and anxiety effects seen only after an interaction with the breast imaging team may indicate that online support only decreases the anxiety of women in concert with direct interpersonal support from the healthcare team.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an online support tool can impact anxiety in women experiencing an abnormal mammogram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an online support system using the Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System (CHESS) designed for women experiencing an abnormal mammogram as a model. Our trial randomized 130 of these women to online support (the intervention group) or to a list of five commonly used Internet sites (the comparison group). Surveys assessed anxiety and breast cancer worry, and patient satisfaction at three important clinical time points: when women were notified of their abnormal mammogram, at the time of diagnostic imaging, and at the time of biopsy (if biopsy was recommended). RESULTS: Study participants in the intervention group showed a significant decrease in anxiety at the time of biopsy compared to the comparison group (p = 0.017). However, there was no significant difference in anxiety between the intervention group and the comparison group at the time of diagnostic work-up. We discontinued assessment of patient satisfaction after finding that many women had substantial difficulty answering the questions that referenced their physician, because they did not understand who their physician was for this process of care. CONCLUSION: The combination of the inability to identify the physician providing care during the mammography work-up and anxiety effects seen only after an interaction with the breast imaging team may indicate that online support only decreases the anxiety of women in concert with direct interpersonal support from the healthcare team.
Authors: Bradford W Hesse; David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Robert T Croyle; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Dec 12-26
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Robert Hawkins; Suzanne Pingree; Linda J Roberts; Helene E McDowell; Bret R Shaw; Ron Serlin; Lisa Dillenburg; Christopher M Swoboda; Jeong-Yeob Han; James A Stewart; Cindy L Carmack-Taylor; Andrew Salner; Tanya R Schlam; Fiona McTavish; David H Gustafson Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: F M McTavish; D H Gustafson; B H Owens; M Wise; J O Taylor; F M Apantaku; H Berhe; B Thorson Journal: Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care Date: 1994
Authors: Mary B Barton; Debra S Morley; Sara Moore; Jennifer D Allen; Ken P Kleinman; Karen M Emmons; Suzanne W Fletcher Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-04-07 Impact factor: 13.506