| Literature DB >> 26500019 |
H J G Abrahams1, M F M Gielissen2, M M Goedendorp3, T Berends4, M E W J Peters5, H Poort6, C A H H V M Verhagen7, H Knoop8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About one third of breast cancer survivors suffer from persistent severe fatigue after completion of curative cancer treatment. Face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (F2F CBT), especially designed for fatigue in cancer survivors, was found effective in reducing fatigue. However, this intervention is intensive and treatment capacity is limited. To extend treatment options, a web-based version of CBT requiring less therapist time was developed. This intervention is aimed at changing fatigue-perpetuating cognitions and behaviors. The efficacy of web-based CBT will be examined in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26500019 PMCID: PMC4619089 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1787-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Explanatory model of the CBT protocol
In- and exclusion criteria
| Inclusion criteria |
| 1) Women who are 18 years or older. |
| 2) Treated for breast cancer with curative intent. |
| 3) Breast cancer treatment (surgery, chemo- and/or radiotherapy) must be finished at least 3 months previously. There is no upper limit for the time since completion of cancer treatment. Patients who currently receive hormone and/or targeted therapy are eligible. |
| 4) Disease-free at entry of the study, defined by the absence of somatic disease activity parameters. |
| 5) Able to speak, read, and write Dutch. |
| 6) Severely fatigued, defined by a score of ≥35 on the fatigue severity subscale of the Checklist Individual Strength. |
| 7) Having access to a computer with internet. |
| Exclusion criteria |
| 8) Presence of a co-morbidity that explains the presence of severe fatigue. |
| 9) A depressive disorder, assessed with the BDI-PC and the M.I.N.I. |
| 10) Current psychological treatment for a psychiatric disorder. |
| 11) Current CBT for fatigue. |
Fig. 2Overall study design. T0 = baseline assessment; T1 = second assessment
Fig. 3Screenshot of On the road to recovery
Tools to assess which treatment modules are indicated
| Treatment module | Instrument [REF] | Outcome | Response format | Psychometric properties | Cut-off value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Coping with cancer and cancer treatment | Impact of Event Scale [ | Intrusion and avoidance | 4-point Likert scale, range 0–60 | Cronbach’s α ranges between 0.87 and 0.96; adequate convergent validity [ | Score ≥10 for each separate scale |
| 2. Fear of cancer recurrence | Modified cancer acceptance scale [ | Fear of disease recurrence | 4-point Likert scale, range 3–12 | N/A | Score ≥7 |
| Cancer worry scale [ | Worries about the risk of developing cancer (again) | 4-point Likert scale, range 8–32 | Cronbach’s α = 0.87; good convergent and divergent validity [ | Score ≥14 [ | |
| 3. Helpful thinking | Modified causal attribution list [ | Somatic and non-somatic attributions | 4-point Likert scale | Cronbach’s α ranges between 0.71 and 0.77 [ | N/A |
| Illness management questionnaire [ | Focusing on symptoms | 6-point Likert-scale, range 9–54 | Cronbach’s α ranges between 0.85 and 0.93 [ | Score ≥30 | |
| Fatigue catastrophizing scale [ | Catastrophizing in response to fatigue | 5-point Likert scale, range 1–5 | Cronbach’s α = 0.85 [ | Score ≥2 (magnifying); score ≥7 (ruminating). | |
| Self-efficacy scale [ | Self-efficacy with respect to fatigue | 4 point Likert scale, range 7–28 | N/A | Score ≤19 | |
| 4. Sleep-wake rhythm | Sleep-wake diary | Sleep-wake rhythm | Bedtimes and wake-up times of 12 consecutive days and nights | N/A | N/A |
| 5. Activity regulation | An actometer, a motion-sensing device, worn to the ankle for 12 consecutive days and nights | Activity pattern (relatively active versus low active) | Average physical activity level (number of accelerations per 5 min period) [ | Adequate reliability and validity [ | N/A |
| 6. Social support | Van Sonderen Social Support Inventory, subscales Interactions (SSLI) and Discrepancies (SSLD) [ | Discrepancy between actual and desired social support | 4-point Likert Scale, range 34–136 | Cronbach’s α = 0.93 (SSLI); α = 0.95 (SSLD); good content validity [ | Score ≥14 (SSLI); score ≥50 (SSLD) |