Karen Meneses1,2, Maria Pisu3,4, Andres Azuero1, Rachel Benz1, Xiaogang Su5, Patrick McNees6,7. 1. School of Nursing, Office of Research and Scholarship, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 2. O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. mpisu@uab.edu. 4. School of Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, MT 636, 1720 2nd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL, 35294-4410, USA. mpisu@uab.edu. 5. Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA. 6. School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 7. PK LifeSciences Corp, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare two implementation telephone-based strategies of an evidence-based educational and support intervention to Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) in which education was delivered early or after the support component. METHODS:Florida RBCS participated in a 12-month randomized clinical trial (RCT) with two arms: Early Education and Support (EE-S) and Support and Delayed Education (S-DE). Arms differed in the timing of 6 support and 3 education sessions. Main outcome was quality of life (QOL, SF-36physical and mental composite scores [PCS, MCS]). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D), mood (Profile of Mood States, POMS), and social support (Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, MOS-SSS). Outcomes were analyzed longitudinally using repeated measures models fitted with linear mixed methods. RESULTS: Of 432 RBCS (mean 25.6 months from diagnosis), about 48% were 65+, 73% married/partnered, and 28% with ≤high school education. There were no differences between EE-S and S-DE in demographics or outcomes at baseline (mean (standard deviation): SF-36 PCS, 44.88 (10.6) vs. 45.08 (10.6); MCS, 49.45 (11.1) vs. 48.1 (11.9); CES-D, 10.11 (9.8) vs. 10.86 (10.5); POMS-SF, 23.95 (38.6) vs. 26.35 (38.8); MOS-SSS, 79.2 (21.2) vs. 78.66 (21.2)) or over time. One exception was slightly worse mean scores at month 9 in MCS (Cohen's d, - 0.22; 95% CI, - 0.38, - 0.06) and POMS (Cohen's d, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07, 0.39) for EE-S vs. S-DE. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation strategies were equivalent. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Enhancing support may be considered before delivering not-in-person interventions to RBCS.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare two implementation telephone-based strategies of an evidence-based educational and support intervention to Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) in which education was delivered early or after the support component. METHODS: Florida RBCS participated in a 12-month randomized clinical trial (RCT) with two arms: Early Education and Support (EE-S) and Support and Delayed Education (S-DE). Arms differed in the timing of 6 support and 3 education sessions. Main outcome was quality of life (QOL, SF-36 physical and mental composite scores [PCS, MCS]). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D), mood (Profile of Mood States, POMS), and social support (Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, MOS-SSS). Outcomes were analyzed longitudinally using repeated measures models fitted with linear mixed methods. RESULTS: Of 432 RBCS (mean 25.6 months from diagnosis), about 48% were 65+, 73% married/partnered, and 28% with ≤high school education. There were no differences between EE-S and S-DE in demographics or outcomes at baseline (mean (standard deviation): SF-36 PCS, 44.88 (10.6) vs. 45.08 (10.6); MCS, 49.45 (11.1) vs. 48.1 (11.9); CES-D, 10.11 (9.8) vs. 10.86 (10.5); POMS-SF, 23.95 (38.6) vs. 26.35 (38.8); MOS-SSS, 79.2 (21.2) vs. 78.66 (21.2)) or over time. One exception was slightly worse mean scores at month 9 in MCS (Cohen's d, - 0.22; 95% CI, - 0.38, - 0.06) and POMS (Cohen's d, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07, 0.39) for EE-S vs. S-DE. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation strategies were equivalent. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Enhancing support may be considered before delivering not-in-person interventions to RBCS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cancer survivorship; Implementation; Neoplasm; Quality of life; Rural health
Authors: Cheryl L Rock; Colleen Doyle; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Kerry S Courneya; Anna L Schwartz; Elisa V Bandera; Kathryn K Hamilton; Barbara Grant; Marji McCullough; Tim Byers; Ted Gansler Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Elizabeth G Eakin; Sandra C Hayes; Marion R Haas; Marina M Reeves; Janette L Vardy; Frances Boyle; Janet E Hiller; Gita D Mishra; Ana D Goode; Michael Jefford; Bogda Koczwara; Christobel M Saunders; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Kerry S Courneya; Kathryn H Schmitz; Afaf Girgis; Kate White; Kathy Chapman; Anna G Boltong; Katherine Lane; Sandy McKiernan; Lesley Millar; Lorna O'Brien; Greg Sharplin; Polly Baldwin; Erin L Robson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Neil K Aaronson; Vittorio Mattioli; Ollie Minton; Joachim Weis; Christoffer Johansen; Susanne O Dalton; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Kevin D Stein; Catherine M Alfano; Anja Mehnert; Angela de Boer; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: EJC Suppl Date: 2014-05-29