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

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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

文本中提供了补充数字内容。摘要背景:超过一半的癌症幸存者经历了对癌症复发(FCR)的恐惧。有人呼吁为中度FCR提供方便、廉价的干预措施,以补充现有的专业护理。在随机BLANKET试验中,我们研究了FCR的短期初级保健干预的有效性。我们报告了干预的潜力以及初级保健提供这种干预的适宜性。方法:BLANKET试验是一项以FCR严重程度(癌症复发恐惧量表的严重程度分量表)的变化为主要结果的分组随机对照试验。参与的全科医生邀请了所有在3个月至10年前成功完成癌症治疗的患者。我们报告了效果测量、招募策略的结果、干预措施的接受、不参与的原因以及干预经验。结果:1368名受邀的癌症幸存者中有62人(4.5%)参与。据报道,不参加的主要原因是没有经历FCR和不需要帮助。由于参与度低,我们无法有力地评估干预措施的有效性。值得注意的是,在意向治疗分析中,干预组(n=27)的FCR严重程度从T0降至T1降低了2.7分(标准差[SD]=4.7),对照组(n=18)降低了1.8分(SD=3.6)。在按方案分析中,下降幅度分别为3.5分(SD=4.5)和0.7分(SD=2.7)。结论:尽管根据文献,FCR的患病率和对FCR的帮助需求很高,但我们基于初级保健的干预措施的接受率很低。尽管干预措施显示出了潜力,但由于每个初级保健机构需要FCR帮助的患者数量很少,因此需要探索替代的分娩途径。我们建议对FCR的影响进行更多的研究,研究哪些患者需要和渴望帮助,以及什么样的干预和环境适合哪些患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the contribution of IPOS to psycho-oncology Evaluation of frailty, cognitive function, and age as prognostic factors for survival in patients with IDH1wild-type high-grade glioma Survivors of child and adolescent cancer experiences of bullying at school or work: self-report and parent proxy report Family cancer caregiver use of and benefit from an internet-delivered insomnia intervention: results from a single-group feasibility trial The role of peer support and patient navigation for empowerment in breast cancer survivors: implications for community cancer control
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1