Acceptability of the ePOWER intervention: Managing previvors' cancer-related uncertainty and supporting decision making

Marleah Dean , Bethany Jowers , Claire Conley , Erica Camacho , Whitney Espinel , Kimberly A. Kaphingst
{"title":"Acceptability of the ePOWER intervention: Managing previvors' cancer-related uncertainty and supporting decision making","authors":"Marleah Dean ,&nbsp;Bethany Jowers ,&nbsp;Claire Conley ,&nbsp;Erica Camacho ,&nbsp;Whitney Espinel ,&nbsp;Kimberly A. Kaphingst","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2025.100402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Previvors—unaffected individuals who have increased risk of cancer due to a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene—experience high levels of uncertainty, which is associated with negative outcomes. The ePOWER (empowering Preventive Options for Women Experiencing Risk) intervention is designed to help <em>BRCA1/2</em> previvors manage their cancer-related uncertainty and make informed health decisions. In this study, we assessed the acceptability of ePOWER using a multiple methods approach.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Previvors (<em>N</em> = 24) completed individual, semi-structured interviews. Previvors first completed the Treatment Acceptability and Preference Scale (TAPS). Additionally, using a Learner Verification &amp; Revision (LV&amp;R) interviewing approach, we also elicited feedback on whether ePOWER was understandable, salient, and satisfactory to previvors. Acceptability was assessed by quantitative data (TAPS scores) and qualitative data (interviews). In analyzing the interview data and integrating the findings, deductive coding was utilized using LV&amp;R categories and inductive thematic analysis was utilized to capture additional nuances from participants' evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Adequate acceptability was demonstrated by TAPS scores. 88 % of participants exceeded the a priori acceptability threshold (TAPS ≥3). Deductive coding using LV&amp;R categories also confirmed ePOWER was visually appealing, understandable, persuasive, cultural appropriate, and fostered self-efficacy. Inductive thematic analysis expanded on the LV&amp;R categories and identified two additional themes: (1) relatability and emotional support and (2) useful resource.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>ePOWER is an acceptable intervention to help previvors manage cancer-related uncertainty and support decision making.</div></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><div>The ePOWER intervention can be shared during healthcare appointments and then utilized continuously by previvors to manage uncertainty and facilitate decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100402"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628225000317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Previvors—unaffected individuals who have increased risk of cancer due to a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene—experience high levels of uncertainty, which is associated with negative outcomes. The ePOWER (empowering Preventive Options for Women Experiencing Risk) intervention is designed to help BRCA1/2 previvors manage their cancer-related uncertainty and make informed health decisions. In this study, we assessed the acceptability of ePOWER using a multiple methods approach.

Methods

Previvors (N = 24) completed individual, semi-structured interviews. Previvors first completed the Treatment Acceptability and Preference Scale (TAPS). Additionally, using a Learner Verification & Revision (LV&R) interviewing approach, we also elicited feedback on whether ePOWER was understandable, salient, and satisfactory to previvors. Acceptability was assessed by quantitative data (TAPS scores) and qualitative data (interviews). In analyzing the interview data and integrating the findings, deductive coding was utilized using LV&R categories and inductive thematic analysis was utilized to capture additional nuances from participants' evaluation.

Results

Adequate acceptability was demonstrated by TAPS scores. 88 % of participants exceeded the a priori acceptability threshold (TAPS ≥3). Deductive coding using LV&R categories also confirmed ePOWER was visually appealing, understandable, persuasive, cultural appropriate, and fostered self-efficacy. Inductive thematic analysis expanded on the LV&R categories and identified two additional themes: (1) relatability and emotional support and (2) useful resource.

Conclusion

ePOWER is an acceptable intervention to help previvors manage cancer-related uncertainty and support decision making.

Innovation

The ePOWER intervention can be shared during healthcare appointments and then utilized continuously by previvors to manage uncertainty and facilitate decisions.
ePOWER干预的可接受性:管理先前癌症相关的不确定性和支持决策
目的:因基因致病性或可能致病性变异而增加癌症风险的未受影响的个体经历高度的不确定性,这与负面结果相关。ePOWER(赋予女性风险预防选择)干预旨在帮助BRCA1/2患者管理与癌症相关的不确定性,并做出明智的健康决定。在这项研究中,我们使用多种方法评估了ePOWER的可接受性。方法24名康复者完成了个人半结构化访谈。受试者首先完成治疗可接受性和偏好量表(TAPS)。此外,使用学习者验证&;修订(LV&;R)访谈方法,我们也得到了关于ePOWER是否可理解、突出和令人满意的反馈。通过定量数据(TAPS分数)和定性数据(访谈)评估可接受性。在分析访谈数据和整合调查结果时,我们使用了LV&;R类别的演绎编码和归纳主题分析来捕捉参与者评价中的其他细微差别。结果TAPS评分显示有足够的可接受性。88%的参与者超过了先验可接受阈值(TAPS≥3)。使用LV&;R分类的演绎编码也证实了ePOWER在视觉上具有吸引力、可理解、有说服力、文化适应性和培养自我效能感。归纳主题分析扩展了LV&;R类别,并确定了两个额外的主题:(1)相关性和情感支持;(2)有用的资源。结论power是一种可接受的干预措施,可帮助患者管理癌症相关的不确定性并支持决策。创新ePOWER干预措施可以在医疗保健预约期间共享,然后由以前的人持续使用,以管理不确定性并促进决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信