Yvonne L Luigjes-Huizer, C. Helsper, Marloes M. J. G. Gerrits, N. D. de Wit, M. L. van der Lee
{"title":"由于害怕癌症复发,需要以初级保健为基础的干预:来自BLANKET试验的结论","authors":"Yvonne L Luigjes-Huizer, C. Helsper, Marloes M. J. G. Gerrits, N. D. de Wit, M. L. van der Lee","doi":"10.1097/OR9.0000000000000086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Abstract Background: More than half of cancer survivors experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). There has been a call for easily accessible, inexpensive interventions for moderate FCR to complement existing specialized care. In the randomized BLANKET trial, we investigated the effectiveness of a short, primary care intervention for FCR. We report on the potential of the intervention and the suitability of primary care to offer this intervention. Methods: The BLANKET trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial with change in FCR severity (severity subscale of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory) as its main outcome. Participating general practitioners invited all patients who completed successful curative cancer treatment between 3 months and 10 years ago. We report effect measures, outcome of our recruitment strategy, intervention uptake, reasons not to participate, and experiences with the intervention. Results: Sixty-two of 1368 (4.5%) invited cancer survivors participated. Main reported reasons not to participate were not experiencing FCR and not wanting help. Owing to the low participation, we could not robustly evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Indicatively, in the intention-to-treat analysis, FCR severity decreased from T0 to T1 by 2.7 points (standard deviation [SD] = 4.7) in the intervention group (n = 27) and 1.8 points (SD = 3.6) in the control group (n = 18). In the per-protocol analysis, the decreases were 3.5 points (SD = 4.5) and 0.7 points (SD = 2.7), respectively. Conclusion: Although the prevalence of FCR and the need for help for FCR are high according to the literature, the uptake of our primary care–based intervention was low. Although the intervention shows potential, alternative delivery routes need to be explored because of the low number of patients who need help for FCR per primary care practice. We recommend additional research on the impact of FCR, on which patients require and desire help, and on what kind of intervention and setting are fitting for what patients.","PeriodicalId":73915,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Need for a primary care–based intervention for fear of cancer recurrence: conclusions from the BLANKET trial\",\"authors\":\"Yvonne L Luigjes-Huizer, C. Helsper, Marloes M. J. G. Gerrits, N. D. de Wit, M. L. van der Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OR9.0000000000000086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Abstract Background: More than half of cancer survivors experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). There has been a call for easily accessible, inexpensive interventions for moderate FCR to complement existing specialized care. In the randomized BLANKET trial, we investigated the effectiveness of a short, primary care intervention for FCR. We report on the potential of the intervention and the suitability of primary care to offer this intervention. Methods: The BLANKET trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial with change in FCR severity (severity subscale of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory) as its main outcome. Participating general practitioners invited all patients who completed successful curative cancer treatment between 3 months and 10 years ago. We report effect measures, outcome of our recruitment strategy, intervention uptake, reasons not to participate, and experiences with the intervention. Results: Sixty-two of 1368 (4.5%) invited cancer survivors participated. Main reported reasons not to participate were not experiencing FCR and not wanting help. Owing to the low participation, we could not robustly evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Indicatively, in the intention-to-treat analysis, FCR severity decreased from T0 to T1 by 2.7 points (standard deviation [SD] = 4.7) in the intervention group (n = 27) and 1.8 points (SD = 3.6) in the control group (n = 18). In the per-protocol analysis, the decreases were 3.5 points (SD = 4.5) and 0.7 points (SD = 2.7), respectively. Conclusion: Although the prevalence of FCR and the need for help for FCR are high according to the literature, the uptake of our primary care–based intervention was low. Although the intervention shows potential, alternative delivery routes need to be explored because of the low number of patients who need help for FCR per primary care practice. We recommend additional research on the impact of FCR, on which patients require and desire help, and on what kind of intervention and setting are fitting for what patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/OR9.0000000000000086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychosocial oncology research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OR9.0000000000000086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Need for a primary care–based intervention for fear of cancer recurrence: conclusions from the BLANKET trial
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Abstract Background: More than half of cancer survivors experience fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). There has been a call for easily accessible, inexpensive interventions for moderate FCR to complement existing specialized care. In the randomized BLANKET trial, we investigated the effectiveness of a short, primary care intervention for FCR. We report on the potential of the intervention and the suitability of primary care to offer this intervention. Methods: The BLANKET trial is a cluster randomized controlled trial with change in FCR severity (severity subscale of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory) as its main outcome. Participating general practitioners invited all patients who completed successful curative cancer treatment between 3 months and 10 years ago. We report effect measures, outcome of our recruitment strategy, intervention uptake, reasons not to participate, and experiences with the intervention. Results: Sixty-two of 1368 (4.5%) invited cancer survivors participated. Main reported reasons not to participate were not experiencing FCR and not wanting help. Owing to the low participation, we could not robustly evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Indicatively, in the intention-to-treat analysis, FCR severity decreased from T0 to T1 by 2.7 points (standard deviation [SD] = 4.7) in the intervention group (n = 27) and 1.8 points (SD = 3.6) in the control group (n = 18). In the per-protocol analysis, the decreases were 3.5 points (SD = 4.5) and 0.7 points (SD = 2.7), respectively. Conclusion: Although the prevalence of FCR and the need for help for FCR are high according to the literature, the uptake of our primary care–based intervention was low. Although the intervention shows potential, alternative delivery routes need to be explored because of the low number of patients who need help for FCR per primary care practice. We recommend additional research on the impact of FCR, on which patients require and desire help, and on what kind of intervention and setting are fitting for what patients.