Kelly M Shaffer1,2, Philip I Chow1,2, Jillian V Glazer1, Tri Le2,3, Matthew J Reilley2,3, Mark J Jameson3,4, Lee M Ritterband1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, Center for Behavioral Health and Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 2. Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. 4. Department of Otolaryngology, Division of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may help with the development of more targeted interventions for caregivers' depression, yet the use of this method has been limited among cancer caregivers. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of EMA among cancer caregivers and the use of EMA data to understand affective correlates of caregiver depressive symptoms. METHODS: Caregivers (N = 25) completed a depressive symptom assessment (Patient Health Questionnaire-8) and then received eight EMA survey prompts per day for 7 days. EMA surveys assessed affect on the orthogonal dimensions of valence and arousal. Participants completed feedback surveys regarding the EMA protocol at the conclusion of the week-long study. RESULTS: Of 32 caregivers approached, 25 enrolled and participated (78%), which exceeded the a priori feasibility cutoff of 55%. The prompt completion rate (59%, or 762 of 1,286 issued) did not exceed the a priori cutoff of 65%, although completion was not related to caregivers' age, employment status, physical health quality of life, caregiving stress, or depressive symptoms or the patients' care needs (ps > 0.22). Caregivers' feedback about their study experience was generally positive. Mixed-effects location scale modeling showed caregivers' higher depressive symptoms were related to overall higher reported negative affect and lower positive affect, but not to affective variability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this feasibility study refute potential concerns that an EMA design is too burdensome for distressed caregivers. Clinically, findings suggest the potential importance of not only strategies to reduce overall levels of negative affect, but also to increase opportunities for positive affect.
OBJECTIVE: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may help with the development of more targeted interventions for caregivers' depression, yet the use of this method has been limited among cancer caregivers. This study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of EMA among cancer caregivers and the use of EMA data to understand affective correlates of caregiver depressive symptoms. METHODS: Caregivers (N = 25) completed a depressive symptom assessment (Patient Health Questionnaire-8) and then received eight EMA survey prompts per day for 7 days. EMA surveys assessed affect on the orthogonal dimensions of valence and arousal. Participants completed feedback surveys regarding the EMA protocol at the conclusion of the week-long study. RESULTS: Of 32 caregivers approached, 25 enrolled and participated (78%), which exceeded the a priori feasibility cutoff of 55%. The prompt completion rate (59%, or 762 of 1,286 issued) did not exceed the a priori cutoff of 65%, although completion was not related to caregivers' age, employment status, physical health quality of life, caregiving stress, or depressive symptoms or the patients' care needs (ps > 0.22). Caregivers' feedback about their study experience was generally positive. Mixed-effects location scale modeling showed caregivers' higher depressive symptoms were related to overall higher reported negative affect and lower positive affect, but not to affective variability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this feasibility study refute potential concerns that an EMA design is too burdensome for distressed caregivers. Clinically, findings suggest the potential importance of not only strategies to reduce overall levels of negative affect, but also to increase opportunities for positive affect.
Authors: M Wichers; C J P Simons; I M A Kramer; J A Hartmann; C Lothmann; I Myin-Germeys; A L van Bemmel; F Peeters; Ph Delespaul; J van Os Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2011-08-13 Impact factor: 6.392
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: Young Sun Rhee; Young Ho Yun; Sohee Park; Dong Ok Shin; Kwang Mi Lee; Han Jin Yoo; Jeong Hwa Kim; Soon Ok Kim; Ran Lee; Youn Ok Lee; Nam Shin Kim Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lauren C Heathcote; Sarah J Cunningham; Sarah N Webster; Vivek Tanna; Elia Mattke; Nele Loecher; Sheri L Spunt; Pamela Simon; Gary Dahl; Marta Walentynowicz; Elizabeth Murnane; Perri R Tutelman; Lidia Schapira; Laura E Simons; Claudia Mueller Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.955