Kathrin Milbury1, Gabriel Lopez1, Amy Spelman1, Christopher Wood2, Surena F Matin2, Nizar M Tannir3, Eric Jonasch3, Louis Pisters2, Qi Wei1, Lorenzo Cohen1. 1. Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation & Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify groups most likely to benefit from an Expressive Writing (EW) intervention, we examined psychosocial variables as intervention moderators. We hypothesized that EW would be particularly effective for participants with high levels of depressive symptoms and social support at study entry. METHODS:Patients (n = 277; 60.6% male) with kidney cancer were randomly assigned to either an expressive (EW) or neutral writing (NW) condition. Intervention outcomes included measures of depressive symptoms (CESD), cancer-related symptoms (MDASI), fatigue (BFI), and sleep disturbances (PSQI) assessed at baseline, 1, 4, and 10 months later. Moderators were measured at baseline. RESULTS: As hypothesized, depressive symptoms and social support moderated intervention efficacy. When examining both moderators simultaneously, EW appeared to be most effective in terms of cancer-related symptoms (p < 0.05) and depressive symptoms (p < 0.01) for participants with elevated depressive symptoms who received high levels of social support at baseline relative to their counterparts in the NW condition. Moreover, participants in EW with high levels of social support at baseline reported lower levels sleep disturbances (p = 0.005) than their counterparts in NW. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of baseline depressive symptoms and social support as intervention moderators may lead to improved patient selection for EW interventions, as EW may be particularly beneficial regarding QOL outcomes for patients that have social support available including participants with depressive symptoms. EW may not be beneficial, or potentially even contraindicated, for participants lacking social support.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To identify groups most likely to benefit from an Expressive Writing (EW) intervention, we examined psychosocial variables as intervention moderators. We hypothesized that EW would be particularly effective for participants with high levels of depressive symptoms and social support at study entry. METHODS:Patients (n = 277; 60.6% male) with kidney cancer were randomly assigned to either an expressive (EW) or neutral writing (NW) condition. Intervention outcomes included measures of depressive symptoms (CESD), cancer-related symptoms (MDASI), fatigue (BFI), and sleep disturbances (PSQI) assessed at baseline, 1, 4, and 10 months later. Moderators were measured at baseline. RESULTS: As hypothesized, depressive symptoms and social support moderated intervention efficacy. When examining both moderators simultaneously, EW appeared to be most effective in terms of cancer-related symptoms (p < 0.05) and depressive symptoms (p < 0.01) for participants with elevated depressive symptoms who received high levels of social support at baseline relative to their counterparts in the NW condition. Moreover, participants in EW with high levels of social support at baseline reported lower levels sleep disturbances (p = 0.005) than their counterparts in NW. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of baseline depressive symptoms and social support as intervention moderators may lead to improved patient selection for EW interventions, as EW may be particularly beneficial regarding QOL outcomes for patients that have social support available including participants with depressive symptoms. EW may not be beneficial, or potentially even contraindicated, for participants lacking social support.
Authors: Catherine E Mosher; Katherine N Duhamel; Joanne Lam; Maura Dickler; Yuelin Li; Mary Jane Massie; Larry Norton Journal: Psychol Health Date: 2011-07-08
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Richard Swartz; Bryan Fellman; Diana Urbauer; Yisheng Li; Louis L Pisters; Charles J Rosser; Christopher G Wood; Surena F Matin Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Cindy L Carmack Taylor; Carl de Moor; Karen Basen-Engquist; Murray A Smith; Andrea L Dunn; Hoda Badr; Curtis Pettaway; Ellen R Gritz Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2007-02
Authors: Michael F Scheier; Vicki S Helgeson; Richard Schulz; Suzanne Colvin; Sarah L Berga; Judy Knapp; Kristina Gerszten Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Lemuel Moyé; M David Low; Edgardo Rivera; S Eva Singletary; Rachel T Fouladi; Lorenzo Cohen Journal: J Soc Integr Oncol Date: 2008
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: James A Blumenthal; Yidan Zhu; Gary G Koch; Patrick J Smith; Lana L Watkins; Alan L Hinderliter; Benson M Hoffman; Joseph G Rogers; Patricia P Chang; Christopher O'Connor; Kristy S Johnson; Andrew Sherwood Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 4.267