评估针对妇科癌症妇女的低强度 CBT 干预的过程和效果(EPELIT 试验)。

AMRC open research Pub Date : 2021-03-29 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1
Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams, Lee Hulbert-Williams, Ryan James Flynn, Rosina Pendrous, Carey MacDonald-Smith, Anna Mullard, Brooke Swash, Gemma Evans, Annabel Price
{"title":"评估针对妇科癌症妇女的低强度 CBT 干预的过程和效果(EPELIT 试验)。","authors":"Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams, Lee Hulbert-Williams, Ryan James Flynn, Rosina Pendrous, Carey MacDonald-Smith, Anna Mullard, Brooke Swash, Gemma Evans, Annabel Price","doi":"10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety ( <i>p</i><.001). Analysis of potential intervention mediator processes indicated the potential importance of self-management self-efficacy. Low uptake into the psychological intervention raises questions about (a) patient-driven needs for group-based support, and (b) the sustainability of this intervention programme.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784 (registered 14 June 2018).</p>","PeriodicalId":72183,"journal":{"name":"AMRC open research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11064984/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial).\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams, Lee Hulbert-Williams, Ryan James Flynn, Rosina Pendrous, Carey MacDonald-Smith, Anna Mullard, Brooke Swash, Gemma Evans, Annabel Price\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety ( <i>p</i><.001). Analysis of potential intervention mediator processes indicated the potential importance of self-management self-efficacy. Low uptake into the psychological intervention raises questions about (a) patient-driven needs for group-based support, and (b) the sustainability of this intervention programme.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784 (registered 14 June 2018).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMRC open research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11064984/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMRC open research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMRC open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:提高妇科癌症患者的存活率给长期的心理压力管理带来了越来越大的临床挑战。以心理学家为主导的癌症幸存者干预措施可以带来益处,但往往成本高昂。英国心理健康从业者(PWP)队伍的崛起可能会提供一种更便宜但同样有效的干预方法,而且这种方法更可持续、更容易获得。我们的目标是测试由心理健康从业者共同协助的干预措施在减少抑郁和焦虑、提高生活质量和满足未满足需求方面的有效性:方法:我们采用务实的非随机对照设计来规划这项试验,并从第二个临床站点招募了一个比较样本。干预措施每六周进行一次;在基线、干预期间每周、一周和三个月的随访中收集参与者的数据。由于后勤方面的困难,我们只招募了 8 人参加干预组,26 人参加对照组:结果:我们没有发现抑郁、生活质量或未满足需求方面存在明显的组间差异,但在随访中发现焦虑方面存在一些差异(p 结论:本研究未能招募到目标群体;干预组与对照组在抑郁、生活质量或未满足需求方面存在明显的组间差异:这项研究未能招募到目标人群;尽管数据中的一些趋势值得关注,但由于分析的力度不足,可能会导致报告的效果不明显。干预组的保留率和对照组的低流失率表明了干预内容和试验设计的可接受性;然而,由于基线人群较少,目前的试验设计并不可行。要回答我们的研究问题,还需要进一步的工作,但重要的是,要解决这一癌症幸存者群体对心理干预措施接受度低的问题:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784(2018年6月14日注册)。
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
Evaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial).

Background: Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs.

Methods: We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group.

Results: We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety ( p<.001). Analysis of potential intervention mediator processes indicated the potential importance of self-management self-efficacy. Low uptake into the psychological intervention raises questions about (a) patient-driven needs for group-based support, and (b) the sustainability of this intervention programme.

Conclusions: This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784 (registered 14 June 2018).

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Creating connections: developing an online space for cross-regional mentorship and network building in the dementia research field. Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices: A systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice. Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] The dementia research career pipeline: Gender disparities in publication authorships and grant funding outcomes at different career stages.
×
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