Adapting an in-person acceptance and commitment therapy-based psychological intervention for fear of cancer recurrence into a digital format: a real-world evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Fiona Sinclair, David Gillanders, Christopher Hewitt, Natalie Rooney, Christine Bonathan, Lauren McAllister, Marta Correia, Lynsey Devlin, Kirsty Hendry
{"title":"Adapting an in-person acceptance and commitment therapy-based psychological intervention for fear of cancer recurrence into a digital format: a real-world evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Fiona Sinclair, David Gillanders, Christopher Hewitt, Natalie Rooney, Christine Bonathan, Lauren McAllister, Marta Correia, Lynsey Devlin, Kirsty Hendry","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09946-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Service evaluation comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of an in-person and a digitally delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based group programme for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) for breast cancer survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The programme was designed and delivered as part of a real-world, supportive care intervention and adapted for digital delivery in response to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. FCR, quality of life (QoL), psychological flexibility, and psychological distress measures were routinely collected pre-participation, post-participation, and 12 weeks following completion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-seven in-person and 61 digital participants completed the group programme. Uptake was 30% and retention 89% for in-person. Uptake was 23% and retention 64% for online referrals. Between group statistical analyses revealed non-significant differences between delivery modality on overall scores of FCR (p = 0.76), QoL (p = 0.06) and psychological distress (anxiety p = 0.16; depression p = 0.22). There was a significant difference in psychological flexibility scores (p = 0.04); digital participant scores were higher (mean = 83) than in-person participants (mean = 76.3). Within-group statistical analyses found a significant effect of time for all outcome measures, with a significant decrease in FCR and psychological distress and a significant increase in QoL and psychological flexibility (p < 0.001 for all measures). There were no statistically significant interaction effects between delivery modality and timepoint.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In-person and online delivery of a real-world FCR group programme offered to breast-cancer survivors was found to be beneficial and comparable. These results support the potential benefits of a flexible approach to delivery modality of supportive care interventions. Further investigation is required to determine if these results are replicable within diverse populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 10","pages":"888"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12476442/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09946-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Service evaluation comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of an in-person and a digitally delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based group programme for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) for breast cancer survivors.

Methods: The programme was designed and delivered as part of a real-world, supportive care intervention and adapted for digital delivery in response to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. FCR, quality of life (QoL), psychological flexibility, and psychological distress measures were routinely collected pre-participation, post-participation, and 12 weeks following completion.

Results: Ninety-seven in-person and 61 digital participants completed the group programme. Uptake was 30% and retention 89% for in-person. Uptake was 23% and retention 64% for online referrals. Between group statistical analyses revealed non-significant differences between delivery modality on overall scores of FCR (p = 0.76), QoL (p = 0.06) and psychological distress (anxiety p = 0.16; depression p = 0.22). There was a significant difference in psychological flexibility scores (p = 0.04); digital participant scores were higher (mean = 83) than in-person participants (mean = 76.3). Within-group statistical analyses found a significant effect of time for all outcome measures, with a significant decrease in FCR and psychological distress and a significant increase in QoL and psychological flexibility (p < 0.001 for all measures). There were no statistically significant interaction effects between delivery modality and timepoint.

Conclusion: In-person and online delivery of a real-world FCR group programme offered to breast-cancer survivors was found to be beneficial and comparable. These results support the potential benefits of a flexible approach to delivery modality of supportive care interventions. Further investigation is required to determine if these results are replicable within diverse populations.

Abstract Image

将基于现场接受和承诺治疗的恐惧癌症复发心理干预措施转化为数字形式:2019冠状病毒病大流行期间的现实世界评估
目的:对乳腺癌幸存者的癌症复发恐惧(FCR)进行面对面和数字化交付的接受和承诺治疗(ACT)为基础的团体方案的有效性和可接受性进行服务评估。方法:该规划是作为现实世界的支持性护理干预措施的一部分设计和实施的,并针对COVID-19大流行的限制进行了调整,以实现数字化交付。FCR、生活质量(QoL)、心理灵活性和心理困扰测量在参与前、参与后和完成后12周进行常规收集。结果:97名现场参与者和61名数字参与者完成了小组计划。对于面对面的游戏,玩家的接受率为30%,留存率为89%。在线推荐的使用率为23%,保留率为64%。组间统计分析显示,分娩方式在FCR总分(p = 0.76)、生活质量(p = 0.06)和心理困扰(焦虑p = 0.16;抑郁p = 0.22)上差异无统计学意义。心理灵活性得分差异有统计学意义(p = 0.04);数字参与者的得分(平均= 83)高于现场参与者(平均= 76.3)。组内统计分析发现,时间对所有结果测量都有显著影响,FCR和心理困扰显著降低,生活质量和心理灵活性显著增加(p结论:为乳腺癌幸存者提供的真实世界的FCR组方案的面对面和在线交付被发现是有益的和可比的。这些结果支持了灵活的支持性护理干预方式的潜在益处。需要进一步调查以确定这些结果在不同人群中是否可复制。
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
Supportive Care in Cancer
Supportive Care in Cancer 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
751
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease. Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信