Observational non-randomised controlled evaluation of the effectiveness of cancer counselling centres: a study protocol

Lingens, Solveigh P.; Schilling, Georgia; Harms, Julia; Schulz, Holger; Bleich, Christiane

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032889

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further information on the study procedure and design is available in the published study protocol. 17 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All analyses were adjusted for previously defined covariates assessed at baseline and outlined in the study protocol. 17 Five covariates were added after the publication of the study protocol: patient or relative, inclusion before or during COVID-19, migrant background, children, cancer treatment was divided into status and type. All covariates were assessed at baseline and two were assessed at follow-up (medication, other psychosocial support).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of brief psychosocial support for patients with cancer and their relatives: a quasi-experimental evaluation of cancer counselling centres

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of brief psychosocial support for patients with cancer and their relatives regarding their mental health.DesignQuasi-experimental controlled trial with measurements at three time points (baseline, after 2 weeks and after 12 weeks).SettingThe intervention group (IG) was recruited at two cancer counselling centres in Germany. The control group (CG) included patients with cancer or relatives who did not seek support.ParticipantsIn total, n=885 participants were recruited and n=459 were eligible for the analysis (IG, n=264; CG, n=195).InterventionOne to two psychosocial support sessions (approximately hour) provided by a psycho-oncologist or social worker.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was distress. The secondary outcomes were anxiety and depressive symptoms, well-being, cancer-specific and generic quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and fatigue.ResultsThe linear mixed model analysis showed significant differences between IG and CG at follow-up for distress (d=0.36), p=0.001), depressive (d=0.22), p=0.005) and anxiety symptoms (d=0.22), p=0.003), well-being (d=0.26, p=0.002), QoL (QoL mental; d=0.26, p=0.003), self-efficacy (d=0.21, p=0.011) and QoL (global; d=0.27, p=0.009). The changes were not significant for QoL (physical; d=0.04, p=0.618), cancer-specific QoL (symptoms; d=0.13, p=0.093), cancer-specific QoL (functional; d=0.08, p=0.274) and fatigue (d=0.04, p=0.643).ConclusionThe results suggest that brief psychosocial support is associated with the improvement of mental health of patients with cancer and their relatives after 3 months.Trial registration numberDRKS00015516.

show abstract

“…Further information on the study procedure and design is available in the published study protocol. 17 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of brief psychosocial support for patients with cancer and their relatives: a quasi-experimental evaluation of cancer counselling centres

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present study is a cross-sectional study of patients with cancer and their relatives seeking advice at two psychosocial cancer support centres in a major city in Germany. The following findings result from an analysis of baseline measurements of an ongoing larger quasi-experimental prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial cancer support centres [23].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychological, social or legal concerns were addressed. The complete procedure of the full study is explained in more detail elsewhere [23].…”

Section: Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between self-efficacy, distress and anxiety in cancer patient-relative dyads visiting psychosocial cancer support services: Using actor-partner interdependence modelling

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients with cancer and their relatives often suffer from psychosocial burdens following a cancer diagnosis. Psychosocial cancer support services offer support for cancer patients and their relatives. Only a few studies have focused on associations of psychological factors within patient-relative dyads. This study aims to assess associations between the patients’ or relatives’ self-efficacy and their levels of distress and anxiety who seek help together at psychosocial cancer support centres. Methods Participants were recruited at two psychosocial cancer support centres in a major city in Germany. Patients with cancer and their relatives seeking support together received the questionnaire before their first support session. Self-efficacy was assessed with the Pearlin sense of mastery scale, distress with the distress thermometer and anxiety with the General Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7). For the analysis, the actor-partner interdependence model was applied. Results The data analysis was based on 41 patient-relative dyads (patients: 39% women, mean age 53.5; relatives: 66% women, mean age 52.16). A significant actor effect from self-efficacy to distress was found for patients (r = -0.47) but not for relatives (r = -0.15). Partner effects from self-efficacy to distress were not significant (r = -0.03, r = -0.001). The actor effect from self-efficacy to anxiety for patients (r = -0.61) as well as relatives was significant (r = -0.62), whereas the partner effect was significant for patients (r = 0.16) but not for relatives (r = -0.46). Conclusion The results suggest that patients’ and relatives’ self-efficacy is associated with their distress and anxiety. Partner effects were visible for patients’ self-efficacy and relatives’ anxiety. These findings suggest that self-efficacy is an important factor for the psychological well-being of patients and relatives and that it may additionally be associated with the partners’ well-being. Longitudinal research with larger samples is needed to support the findings.

show abstract

“…All analyses were adjusted for previously de ned covariates assessed at baseline and outlined in the study protocol [17]. The following covariates were included in the analysis: Sociodemographic factors: Age (in years), sex (female/male), patient or relative, migrant background (yes/no), educational background (high school or higher: yes/no), current occupational status (employed: yes/no), source of income (occupation/pension/governmental support), family status (single: yes/no), children (yes/no).…”

Section: Covariatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of brief psychosocial support on mental health of cancer patients and their relatives: A non-randomized controlled evaluation of cancer counseling centers

Lingens

Schilling

Schulz

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Patients with cancer and their relatives often experience a deterioration of mental health while dealing with the consequences of the disease. The aim of the present study was to evaluate changes of mental health during and after brief psychosocial support at cancer counselling centers.Methods: In this non-randomized controlled trial n = 885 participants were recruited and n = 449 were eligible for the analysis. The intervention group (IG, n = 264) was recruited at two cancer counselling centers in Germany. The control group (CG, n = 195) were cancer patients or relatives who did not seek support at one of the aforementioned cancer counseling centers. To compare differences between IG and CG across three points in time (before the first counseling session and subsequently after two twelve weeks), a linear mixed model analysis (LLM) was performed. The primary outcome was distress; secondary outcomes were anxiety and depressive symptoms, well-being, cancer specific and generic quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy, and fatigue. Results: The LLM showed significant differences between IG and CG at follow-up for distress (d = 0.36), depressive (d = 0.22) and anxiety symptoms (d = 0.22), well-being (d = 0.26), quality of life (QoL mental, d = 0.26), cancer specific QoL (symptoms, d = 0.13) and QoL (global, d = 0.27). The changes were not significant for QoL (physical), cancer specific QoL (functional) and fatigue. Conclusion: The results suggest that brief psychosocial support is associated with the improvement of mental health of cancer patients and their relatives after three months.The study was approved by the Center of Psychosocial Medicine (LPEK) at the University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf on 22nd of August 2018 (No: LPEK-007). The study was registered prior to data collection with the German Registration of Clinical Trials (DRKS, ID: DRKS00015516) in September 2018.

show abstract

Observational non-randomised controlled evaluation of the effectiveness of cancer counselling centres: a study protocol

Cited by 4 publications

References 39 publications

Effectiveness of brief psychosocial support for patients with cancer and their relatives: a quasi-experimental evaluation of cancer counselling centres

Effectiveness of brief psychosocial support for patients with cancer and their relatives: a quasi-experimental evaluation of cancer counselling centres

Associations between self-efficacy, distress and anxiety in cancer patient-relative dyads visiting psychosocial cancer support services: Using actor-partner interdependence modelling

Effectiveness of brief psychosocial support on mental health of cancer patients and their relatives: A non-randomized controlled evaluation of cancer counseling centers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About