Sylvie D Lambert1,2, Patrick McElduff3, Afaf Girgis4, Janelle V Levesque4, Tim W Regan5, Jane Turner6, Hayley Candler4, Cathrine Mihalopoulos7, Sophy T F Shih7, Karen Kayser8, Peter Chong9. 1. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Wilson Hall, 3506 University Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 2A7, Canada. Sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca. 2. Psycho-Oncology Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool, NSW, 1871, Australia. Sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca. 3. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, HMRI Building, John Hunter Hospital Campus, New Lambton Heights, NSW, 2305, Australia. 4. Psycho-Oncology Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool, NSW, 1871, Australia. 5. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia. 6. The University of Queensland, Mental Health Centre K Floor, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia. 7. Deakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. 8. Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA. 9. Lake Macquarie Urology, Level 3, Suite 2 20 Smart Street, Charlestown, NSW, 2290, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data. METHODS: Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview. RESULTS:One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data. METHODS: Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Caregivers; Coping; Partners; Pilot study; Self-care; Self-directed intervention
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Julie F Pallant; Kerrie Clover; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Afaf Girgis; Jane Turner; Tim Regan; Hayley Candler; Ben Britton; Suzanne Chambers; Catalina Lawsin; Karen Kayser Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-08-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Laurel L Northouse; Maria C Katapodi; Lixin Song; Lingling Zhang; Darlene W Mood Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Linda E Carlson; Codie R Rouleau; Michael Speca; John Robinson; Barry D Bultz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Charlene J Treanor; Olinda Santin; Gillian Prue; Helen Coleman; Chris R Cardwell; Peter O'Halloran; Michael Donnelly Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-06-17
Authors: Janelle V Levesque; Sylvie D Lambert; Afaf Girgis; Jane Turner; Patrick McElduff; Karen Kayser Journal: Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs Date: 2015 Jul-Sep
Authors: Leila Heckel; Kate M Fennell; John Reynolds; Anna Boltong; Mari Botti; Richard H Osborne; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Jacquie Chirgwin; Melinda Williams; Cadeyrn J Gaskin; David M Ashley; Patricia M Livingston Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 4.430