Feasibility, Acceptability, and Clinical Significance of a Dyadic, Web-Based, Psychosocial and Physical Activity Self-Management Program (TEMPO) Tailored to the Needs of Men with Prostate Cancer and Their Caregivers: A Multi-Center Randomized Pilot Trial
Abstract:Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer diagnosis among men. Family caregivers (often female spouses) play a key role in ensuring patients’ needs are met, frequently assuming their role with no formal training, which can contribute to a high burden. The purpose of this study was to pilot TEMPO—the first dyadic, Tailored, wEb-based, psychosocial and physical activity self-Management PrOgram for men with prostate cancer and their caregivers. Methods: 49 men with prostate cancer and their caregivers… Show more
“…Thirty‐six of 43 (84%) studies reported the proportion of participants who commenced the intervention out of the total number of eligible participants offered enrolment. The proportions were variable, ranging from 35 40 to 97% 41 for guided interventions with a mean of 68%, 36,37,40–52 and 20 50 ‐100% 51 for non‐guided interventions with a mean of 64% 7,34,38,39,53–69 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proportions were variable, ranging from 35 40 to 97% 41 for guided interventions with a mean of 68%, 36,37,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] and 20 50 -100% 51 for non-guided interventions with a mean of 64%. 7,34,38,39,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] Sixty-seven percent (29/43) of studies reported intervention usage, 19 of which (65.5%) were studies of non-guided interventions and 10 (34.5%) were guided (see Table S3, Appendix S1). Nine studies provided data on the proportion of participants using the intervention as intended, defined as 60%-100% completion in the literature.…”
ObjectiveTo evaluate engagement with and efficacy of guided versus non‐guided digital interventions targeting psychological symptoms of cancer via a systematic review of current evidence.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched. Eligible publications were randomised controlled trials of guided or non‐guided digital psychological interventions used in cancer settings reporting intervention efficacy and/or engagement. Study methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Random effects meta‐analyses were performed on outcomes with sufficient data, with sub‐group analyses of intervention type and follow‐up period.ResultsForty‐three studies were included. Studies varied by level of guidance, type of technology used, duration, and outcomes assessed. Most studies had a high overall RoB. Meta‐analysis indicated that guided interventions significantly reduced distress, anxiety, and fatigue, while non‐guided did not. For depression and quality of life, both guided and non‐guided interventions produced significant improvements. Guided interventions reported higher levels of intervention engagement than non‐guided.ConclusionsGuided digital psychological interventions were likely to be more effective than non‐guided ones for cancer patients, particularly in reducing distress, anxiety, and fatigue. Whilst both types were found to improve depression and life quality, guided interventions were associated with higher patient engagement. These findings suggest digital interventions could supplement traditional cancer care, warranting further research concerning long‐term effects and cost‐efficiency.
“…Thirty‐six of 43 (84%) studies reported the proportion of participants who commenced the intervention out of the total number of eligible participants offered enrolment. The proportions were variable, ranging from 35 40 to 97% 41 for guided interventions with a mean of 68%, 36,37,40–52 and 20 50 ‐100% 51 for non‐guided interventions with a mean of 64% 7,34,38,39,53–69 …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proportions were variable, ranging from 35 40 to 97% 41 for guided interventions with a mean of 68%, 36,37,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] and 20 50 -100% 51 for non-guided interventions with a mean of 64%. 7,34,38,39,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] Sixty-seven percent (29/43) of studies reported intervention usage, 19 of which (65.5%) were studies of non-guided interventions and 10 (34.5%) were guided (see Table S3, Appendix S1). Nine studies provided data on the proportion of participants using the intervention as intended, defined as 60%-100% completion in the literature.…”
ObjectiveTo evaluate engagement with and efficacy of guided versus non‐guided digital interventions targeting psychological symptoms of cancer via a systematic review of current evidence.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched. Eligible publications were randomised controlled trials of guided or non‐guided digital psychological interventions used in cancer settings reporting intervention efficacy and/or engagement. Study methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Random effects meta‐analyses were performed on outcomes with sufficient data, with sub‐group analyses of intervention type and follow‐up period.ResultsForty‐three studies were included. Studies varied by level of guidance, type of technology used, duration, and outcomes assessed. Most studies had a high overall RoB. Meta‐analysis indicated that guided interventions significantly reduced distress, anxiety, and fatigue, while non‐guided did not. For depression and quality of life, both guided and non‐guided interventions produced significant improvements. Guided interventions reported higher levels of intervention engagement than non‐guided.ConclusionsGuided digital psychological interventions were likely to be more effective than non‐guided ones for cancer patients, particularly in reducing distress, anxiety, and fatigue. Whilst both types were found to improve depression and life quality, guided interventions were associated with higher patient engagement. These findings suggest digital interventions could supplement traditional cancer care, warranting further research concerning long‐term effects and cost‐efficiency.
“… 10 11 Due to the deteriorating health of caregivers, their ability to provide support declines, which has a detrimental impact on the patients’ health. 12 Furthermore, the upward trend in prostate cancer incidence and the diverse treatment side effects pose a strain on the healthcare system, necessitating increased allocation of resources for the purposes of long-term care. This augmented burden consequently gives rise to extended patient waiting times, diminished availability of specialised care and escalated healthcare expenditures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 14 However, they often lack structured training to acquire proficient management strategies, resulting in inefficient symptom control and potential exacerbation of harm due to suboptimal management practices. 12 A large-scale study conducted in the UK indicates that over 80% of males reported poor or very poor sexual function after treatment, with approximately 56% of males not receiving any interventions to address this issue. 15 Patients have reported unmet informational needs related to prostate cancer recurrence, the impact on their spouse/partner and long-term effects/recovery associated with prostate cancer.…”
IntroductionProstate cancer is the most common malignant disease within the male genitourinary system. Advances in cancer screening and treatment have significantly ameliorated the survival rates of patients with prostate cancer. Nonetheless, prostate cancer survivors report various degrees of cancer-related symptoms. These symptoms cause physiological and psychological suffering, leading to a deterioration of quality of life. Web-based interventions may facilitate the management of symptoms due to their flexibility, accessibility and convenience. However, the efficacy of web-based interventions in reducing symptom burden remains to be confirmed. Consequently, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively synthesise existing evidence, evaluate the effectiveness of web-based interventions in reducing symptom burden among patients and furnish a reference for clinical practice.Methods and analysisThis protocol strictly adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines. We will comprehensively search six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO) from their inception to March 2024 in order to identify clinical trials on the efficacy of web-based interventions for prostate cancer survivors. Two reviewers will independently conduct study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. The risk bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised trials 2.0, and the strength of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guideline. Meta-analysis will be performed using STATA V.16.0, and the effect size will be calculated using the standardised mean difference and its 95% CI. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Cochran’s Q statics and inconsistency will be measured using the I2statistics. Potential sources of bias will be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review as no human participants will be involved. The results will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal or an academic conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023457718.
“…This review two studies(Lambert et al, 2022;Winters-Stone et al, 2016) presenting two interventions for survivors and their families.The TEMPO program, speci cally designed for men with prostate cancer and their caregivers, offered a comprehensive self-management curriculum encompassing psychosocial coping strategies and physical activity regimens(Lambert et al, 2022). The interventions targeting anxiety and quality of life demonstrated clinically signi cant improvements for both patients and caregivers, with promising adherence rates and positive outcomes across secondary measures(Lambert et al, 2022).…”
Purpose: This review aimed to aggregate existing literature regarding post-treatment health interventions combined for adult cancer survivors and their families.
Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted including quantitative and qualitative studies. The search was carried out in eight databases using the same terms or MESH terms and inclusion of dates from January 2012 to February 2024. After quality assessment, data were extracted and synthesized. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO.
Results: Among the seven studies included, two studies were randomised controlled trials, three were observational and two utilized a qualitative approach. The studies originated from France, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. In total, 704 participants were included, of which 294 were cancer survivors, 40 were non-cancer patients, 271 were family and caregivers, and 99 were healthcare professionals. The studies assessed survival durations post-cancer treatment, ranging from 18 months to 6 years. The sparse interventions employed across the studies displayed a multi-faceted approach tailored to address various aspects of cancer survivorship and caregiver support.
Conclusion: This review provides insights into the complex landscape of post-treatment support requirements for both cancer survivors and their family caregivers. It underscores the critical necessity for more intervention research in comprehensive, accessible, and support services that address the multifaceted dimensions of survivorship for the patient and family as a unit.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.