Stephen J Lepore1, Joanne S Buzaglo2, Morton A Lieberman2, Mitch Golant2, Judith R Greener2, Adam Davey2. 1. Stephen J. Lepore, Judith R. Greener, and Adam Davey, Temple University; Joanne S. Buzaglo and Mitch Golant, Cancer Support Community, Philadelphia, PA; and Morton A. Lieberman, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. slepore@temple.edu. 2. Stephen J. Lepore, Judith R. Greener, and Adam Davey, Temple University; Joanne S. Buzaglo and Mitch Golant, Cancer Support Community, Philadelphia, PA; and Morton A. Lieberman, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Internet support group (ISG) members benefit from receiving social support and, according to the helper therapy principle, by providing support to others. To test the mental health benefits of providing support to others, this trial compared the efficacy of a standard ISG (S-ISG) and an enhanced prosocial ISG (P-ISG). METHODS: A two-armed randomized controlled trial with 1-month pretest and post-test assessments was conducted with women (N = 184) diagnosed in the past 36 months with nonmetastatic breast cancer who reported elevated anxiety or depression. Women were randomly assigned to either the S-ISG or P-ISG condition. Both conditions included six professionally facilitated live chat sessions (90-minute weekly sessions) and access to an asynchronous discussion board; P-ISG also included structured opportunities to help and encourage others. RESULTS: Relative to the S-ISG, participants in the P-ISG condition exhibited more supportive behaviors (emotional, informational, and companionate support), posted more messages that were other-focused and fewer that were self-focused, and expressed less negative emotion (P < .05). Relative to the S-ISG, participants in the P-ISG condition had a higher level of depression and anxiety symptoms after the intervention (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite the successful manipulation of supportive behaviors, the P-ISG did not produce better mental health outcomes in distressed survivors of breast cancer relative to an S-ISG. The prosocial manipulation may have inadvertently constrained women from expressing their needs openly, and thus, they may not have had their needs fully met in the group. Helping others may not be beneficial as a treatment for distressed survivors of breast cancer.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Internet support group (ISG) members benefit from receiving social support and, according to the helper therapy principle, by providing support to others. To test the mental health benefits of providing support to others, this trial compared the efficacy of a standard ISG (S-ISG) and an enhanced prosocial ISG (P-ISG). METHODS: A two-armed randomized controlled trial with 1-month pretest and post-test assessments was conducted with women (N = 184) diagnosed in the past 36 months with nonmetastatic breast cancer who reported elevated anxiety or depression. Women were randomly assigned to either the S-ISG or P-ISG condition. Both conditions included six professionally facilitated live chat sessions (90-minute weekly sessions) and access to an asynchronous discussion board; P-ISG also included structured opportunities to help and encourage others. RESULTS: Relative to the S-ISG, participants in the P-ISG condition exhibited more supportive behaviors (emotional, informational, and companionate support), posted more messages that were other-focused and fewer that were self-focused, and expressed less negative emotion (P < .05). Relative to the S-ISG, participants in the P-ISG condition had a higher level of depression and anxiety symptoms after the intervention (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Despite the successful manipulation of supportive behaviors, the P-ISG did not produce better mental health outcomes in distressed survivors of breast cancer relative to an S-ISG. The prosocial manipulation may have inadvertently constrained women from expressing their needs openly, and thus, they may not have had their needs fully met in the group. Helping others may not be beneficial as a treatment for distressed survivors of breast cancer.
Authors: J Stephen; A Rojubally; K Macgregor; D McLeod; M Speca; J Taylor-Brown; K Fergus; K Collie; J Turner; S Sellick; G Mackenzie Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Jesse R Fann; Anne M Thomas-Rich; Wayne J Katon; Deborah Cowley; Mary Pepping; Bonnie A McGregor; Julie Gralow Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Mark S Salzer; Steven C Palmer; Katy Kaplan; Eugene Brusilovskiy; Thomas Ten Have; Maggie Hampshire; James Metz; James C Coyne Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Rebecca A Shelby; Cindy D Scipio; Tamara J Somers; Mary Scott Soo; Kevin P Weinfurt; Francis J Keefe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Morton A Lieberman; Mitch Golant; Janine Giese-Davis; Andy Winzlenberg; Harold Benjamin; Keith Humphreys; Carol Kronenwetter; Stefani Russo; David Spiegel Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Judith G Proudfoot; Amisha Jayawant; Alexis E Whitton; Gordon Parker; Vijaya Manicavasagar; Meg Smith; Jennifer Nicholas Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Stephen J Lepore; Maria A Rincon; Joanne S Buzaglo; Mitch Golant; Morton A Lieberman; Sarah Bauerle Bass; Suzanne Chambers Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Angela L Falisi; Kara P Wiseman; Anna Gaysynsky; Jennifer K Scheideler; Daniel A Ramin; Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Michelle B Riba; Kristine A Donovan; Barbara Andersen; IIana Braun; William S Breitbart; Benjamin W Brewer; Luke O Buchmann; Matthew M Clark; Molly Collins; Cheyenne Corbett; Stewart Fleishman; Sofia Garcia; Donna B Greenberg; Rev George F Handzo; Laura Hoofring; Chao-Hui Huang; Robin Lally; Sara Martin; Lisa McGuffey; William Mitchell; Laura J Morrison; Megan Pailler; Oxana Palesh; Francine Parnes; Janice P Pazar; Laurel Ralston; Jaroslava Salman; Moreen M Shannon-Dudley; Alan D Valentine; Nicole R McMillian; Susan D Darlow Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Ekin Secinti; Shelley A Johns; Bert H O'Neil; Paul R Helft; Safi Shahda; Shadia I Jalal; Victoria L Champion Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 4.147