| Literature DB >> 25859430 |
Stephanie Jones1, Tamara Ownsworth1, David H K Shum1.
Abstract
Rates of psychological distress are high following diagnosis and treatment of brain tumor. There can be multiple barriers to accessing psychological support, including physical and cognitive impairments and geographical limitations. Tele-based support could provide an effective and more flexible option for delivering psychological interventions. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility and utility of a telephone-based psychotherapy intervention for people with brain tumor. A single-case multiple-baseline design was employed with a 4-7-week baseline phase, 10-week treatment phase, and 5-week maintenance phase including a booster session. Four participants with a benign or malignant brain tumor (three males and one female; aged 34-49 years), received 10 sessions of tele-based therapy and a booster session at 4 weeks post-treatment. Levels of depression, anxiety, and illness cognitions were monitored on a weekly basis throughout each phase whilst measures of quality of life, stress, and self-concept were administered at the start and end of each phase. Weekly measures were analyzed using a combination of both visual analysis and Tau-U statistics. Of the four participants, two of them demonstrated significant gains in mental health (depression and/or anxiety) and a significant decrease in their levels of helplessness (p < 0.05). The other two participants did not show gains in mental health or change in illness cognitions. All participants reported improvement in quality of life post-treatment. The results of the study provide preliminary support concerning the feasibility and utility of tele-based therapy for some people with brain tumor. Further research examining factors influencing the outcomes of tele-based psychological support is needed.Entities:
Keywords: brain tumor; counseling; neuro-oncology; psychological distress; psychotherapy; telephone-based support
Year: 2015 PMID: 25859430 PMCID: PMC4374457 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Summary of case studies evaluating psychological interventions for people with brain tumor.
| Reference | Intervention | Tumor characteristics | Intervention outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rao and Bieliauskas ( | Psychological (16 couple sessions) and cognitive retraining (16 sessions) | Grade II–III | 1 | Improvements in neuropsychological functioning and behavior (e.g., social interactions, leisure, driving skills), and efficiency on work tasks |
| Sherer et al. ( | Cognitive and vocational rehabilitation in clinic and community setting | High grade | 13 | Gains in independence for six participants (six remained the same, one declined) and productivity for eight participants (four remained the same, one declined) which was maintained at 8-month follow-up |
| Kowal et al. ( | Emotion-focused couples therapy (12 sessions) | Low grade | 1 | Description of positive psychological outcomes |
| Tepper ( | Psychosocial support | High grade | 4 | Description of positive psychological outcomes |
| Duval et al. ( | Cognitive and ecological rehabilitation (26 sessions), information meetings (two sessions) | Grade II | 1 | Improvement in working memory at 3-month follow-up with generalization to everyday life |
| Whiting et al. ( | 2-h session of psychoeducation, communication, and relaxation skills training | Grade II | 1 | Decrease in target behavior and increase in knowledge of strategy use |
Summary of group studies evaluating psychological interventions for people with brain tumor.
| Reference | Intervention | Design and sample characteristics | Intervention outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Locke et al. ( | 12 sessions of cognitive rehabilitation (CR) and problem-solving therapy vs. standard medical care | RCT; mixed grades | 19 | Positive feedback from people with brain tumor and caregivers on the program; 88% used compensation strategies and 88% found the intervention helpful. No significant differences on quality of life (QOL), functional capacity, mood, or fatigue between control and intervention group at 3-month follow-up |
| Gehring et al. ( | CR (retraining and compensation, six sessions); 3-month telephone-based booster | RCT with waiting list; Grade II and III | 140 | Significant effects at post-treatment for subjective cognitive function and perceived burden; not maintained at 6-month follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, significant gains on tests of attention and verbal memory and improvements with mental fatigue |
| Hassler et al. ( | 10 sessions of group cognitive training (attention, verbal, and memory skills) over 12 weeks | Pilot study with no control group; Grade III and IV | 11 | Significant improvement in verbal memory at post-intervention |
| Zucchella et al. ( | 16 sessions of CR for 4 weeks | RCT; mixed grade | 58 | Significant improvement in cognitive functioning at post-intervention |
| Khan et al. ( | Individualized social support program: interview plus peer support or community education/counseling | Prospective longitudinal pre-post design; mixed grade | 43 | Significant improvements in psychological functioning, physical QOL, coping strategies, functional, and cognitive independence at 6-week follow-up. Gains in anxiety, stress, and QOL were not maintained at 6-month follow-up, although broader psychosocial gains were maintained long-term |
| Ownsworth et al. ( | 10 sessions of home-based psychotherapy | RCT with wait list; mixed grade | 50 | Significantly reduced depression and improvements in existential well-being and QOL at post-intervention and 6-month follow-up |
Figure 1Multiple baselines across participants design [A, baseline; B, treatment; and C, maintenance and booster (T11) session].
Summary of participants’ demographic and health characteristics.
| Characteristics | Mark | John | Robyn | Samuel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 43 | 34 | 49 | 40 |
| Gender | Male | Male | Female | Male |
| Highest level of education | Post-secondary school diploma | Secondary (high school) | Undergraduate degree | Undergraduate degree |
| Current employment | Part-time | Part-time | Full-time | Full-time |
| Current relationship status | Divorced, no children | Married, three children | Divorced, two children | Single, no children |
| Time since diagnosis | 13 years | 2.5 years | 3 months | 16 years |
| Brain tumor type | Cystic astrocytoma | Anaplastic astrocytoma | Pituitary tumor | Oligoastrocytoma |
| Tumor malignancy | Grade I | Grade III | Grade I | Grade II |
| Brain tumor location | Hypothalamus/optic pathway | Left temporal lobe | Pituitary gland | Left temporal lobe |
| Treatment/s | Surgery | Surgery | Surgery | Surgery |
| Radiotherapy | Radiotherapy | Hormone replacement therapy | Radiotherapy | |
| chemotherapy | chemotherapy | |||
| Anti-convulsants | Anti-convulsants | |||
| Geographical location | Regional | Regional | Metropolitan | Metropolitan |
| Ability to drive | Yes | Yes | No | No |
.
Figure 2Phases of the intervention program and assessment time points (SRS, Session Rating Scale).
Figure 3Depression (DASS-21) levels across the three phases, with clinical cut-off for “mild” range (as indicated by broken line).
Figure 4Anxiety (GAD-7) levels across the three phases, with clinical cut-off for “mild” range (broken lines).
Figure 5Illness cognition levels on the Illness Cognition Questionnaire (ICQ) across the three phases.
Broader subjective well-being scores for Mark across phases.
| Measure | Initial baseline (A) | Final baseline (A) | End of treatment (B) | End of maintenance (C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FACT-Brain | ||||
| Physical | 24 | 25 | 24 | 23 |
| Social/family | 11 | 15 | 17.5 | 14 |
| Emotional | 18 | 18 | 17 | 21 |
| Functional | 13 | 16 | 14 | 16 |
| G | 66 | 74 | 72.5 | 72 |
| Brain | 33 | 34 | 34 | 35 |
| CDSS | ||||
| Discontinuity self | 34 | 33 | 33 | 31 |
| Continuity self | 13 | 11 | 15 | 12 |
| Continuity others | 19 | 18 | 20 | 21 |
Broader subjective well-being scores for John across phases.
| Measure | Initial baseline (A) | Final baseline (A) | End of treatment (B) | End of maintenance (C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FACT-Brain | ||||
| Physical | 17 | 14 | 16 | 23 |
| Social/family | 20 | 20 | 21 | 25 |
| Emotional | 16 | 15 | 17 | 23 |
| Functional | 20 | 17 | 18 | 27 |
| G | 73 | 66 | 72 | 98 |
| Brain | 37 | 36 | 49 | 34 |
| CDSS | ||||
| Discontinuity self | 28 | 28 | 28 | 23 |
| Continuity self | 11 | 5 | 13 | 15 |
| Continuity others | 18 | 21 | 21 | 21 |
Broader subjective well-being scores for Robyn across phases.
| Measure | Initial baseline (A) | Final baseline (A) | End of treatment (B) | End of maintenance (C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FACT-Brain | ||||
| Physical | 15 | 12 | 17 | 20 |
| Social/family | 18 | 15 | 17 | 17 |
| Emotional | 15 | 14 | 9 | 14 |
| Functional | 15 | 17 | 19 | 20 |
| G | 63 | 58 | 62 | 71 |
| Brain | 52 | 60 | 60 | 63 |
| CDSS | ||||
| Discontinuity self | 24 | 32 | 26 | 27 |
| Continuity self | 13 | 12 | 13 | 13 |
| Continuity others | 18 | 16 | 17 | 21 |
Broader subjective well-being scores for Samuel across phases.
| Measure | Initial baseline (A) | Final baseline (A) | End of treatment (B) | End of maintenance (C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FACT-Brain | ||||
| Physical | 23 | 18 | 21 | 27 |
| Social/family | 21 | 21 | 21 | 19 |
| Emotional | 15 | 12 | 16 | 15 |
| Functional | 20 | 20 | 22 | 21 |
| G | 79 | 71 | 80 | 82 |
| Brain | 39 | 33 | 36 | 26 |
| CDSS | ||||
| Discontinuity self | 28 | 26 | 24 | 26 |
| Continuity self | 12 | 13 | 13 | 14 |
| Continuity others | 19 | 16 | 21 | 21 |