Factors Influencing Preference for Intervention in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery and Tai Chi/Qigong in Cancer Survivors.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Devesh Oberoi, Andrew McLennan, Katherine-Ann Piedalue, Peter M Wayne, Jennifer M Jones, Linda E Carlson
{"title":"Factors Influencing Preference for Intervention in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery and Tai Chi/<i>Qigong</i> in Cancer Survivors.","authors":"Devesh Oberoi,&nbsp;Andrew McLennan,&nbsp;Katherine-Ann Piedalue,&nbsp;Peter M Wayne,&nbsp;Jennifer M Jones,&nbsp;Linda E Carlson","doi":"10.1089/acm.2020.0400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> An important gap between randomized efficacy research and real-world implementation of complementary therapies is the role of patient preferences in influencing engagement and outcome. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of patient preference on health outcomes, but few have investigated the factors associated with preference for interventions, which may be critical to assure the success of program implementation. The current study sought to explore the factors associated with patient preference in an ongoing randomized preference-based trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) versus Tai Chi/<i>qigong</i> (TCQ) (the Mindfulness and Tai Chi/<i>qigong</i> in Cancer Health [MATCH] study). <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> A multi-method study design was used. A subsample of participants were purposely selected from the ongoing MATCH study to have representation from both intervention arms and from both men and women across different age groups. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the factors influencing initial patient preference. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using inductive thematic analysis. The treatment acceptability and preference measure was administered to determine patients' ratings of acceptability and credibility of both preferred and nonpreferred interventions. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 13 participants were interviewed prior to program attendance, with 8 (62%) preferring TCQ and 5 (38%) choosing MBCR. Major themes related to patients' preference for intervention included: (1) expectations about the preferred intervention; (2) knowledge of the intervention; (3) past experiences with the intervention; and (4) self-efficacy. Participants' mean treatment acceptability scores were higher for their preferred program than their nonpreferred program. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Understanding the factors that influence cancer survivors' preference for mind-body interventions can augment health care providers' knowledge of the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of interventions in clinical settings, as well as help patients make informed treatment decisions and improve satisfaction and outcomes. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03641222.</p>","PeriodicalId":14944,"journal":{"name":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine","volume":"27 5","pages":"423-433"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of alternative and complementary medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2020.0400","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: An important gap between randomized efficacy research and real-world implementation of complementary therapies is the role of patient preferences in influencing engagement and outcome. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of patient preference on health outcomes, but few have investigated the factors associated with preference for interventions, which may be critical to assure the success of program implementation. The current study sought to explore the factors associated with patient preference in an ongoing randomized preference-based trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) versus Tai Chi/qigong (TCQ) (the Mindfulness and Tai Chi/qigong in Cancer Health [MATCH] study). Materials and Methods: A multi-method study design was used. A subsample of participants were purposely selected from the ongoing MATCH study to have representation from both intervention arms and from both men and women across different age groups. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the factors influencing initial patient preference. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using inductive thematic analysis. The treatment acceptability and preference measure was administered to determine patients' ratings of acceptability and credibility of both preferred and nonpreferred interventions. Results: A total of 13 participants were interviewed prior to program attendance, with 8 (62%) preferring TCQ and 5 (38%) choosing MBCR. Major themes related to patients' preference for intervention included: (1) expectations about the preferred intervention; (2) knowledge of the intervention; (3) past experiences with the intervention; and (4) self-efficacy. Participants' mean treatment acceptability scores were higher for their preferred program than their nonpreferred program. Conclusion: Understanding the factors that influence cancer survivors' preference for mind-body interventions can augment health care providers' knowledge of the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of interventions in clinical settings, as well as help patients make informed treatment decisions and improve satisfaction and outcomes. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03641222.

影响癌症幸存者以正念为基础的癌症康复与太极/气功比较疗效试验中干预偏好的因素。
简介:随机疗效研究与补充疗法的实际实施之间的一个重要差距是患者偏好在影响参与和结果方面的作用。一些研究强调了患者偏好对健康结果的好处,但很少有研究调查干预偏好的相关因素,这可能是确保计划实施成功的关键。目前的研究试图在一项正在进行的基于随机偏好的基于正念的癌症康复(MBCR)与太极/气功(TCQ)(正念和太极/气功在癌症健康[MATCH]研究)的试验中探索与患者偏好相关的因素。材料与方法:采用多方法研究设计。有意从正在进行的MATCH研究中选择参与者的子样本,以代表不同年龄组的干预组和男性和女性。采用开放式、半结构化的定性访谈来探讨影响初始患者偏好的因素。访谈内容逐字记录,采用归纳主题分析法进行分析。采用治疗可接受性和偏好测量来确定患者对首选和非首选干预措施的可接受性和可信度的评分。结果:共有13名参与者在参加课程之前接受了采访,其中8人(62%)选择TCQ, 5人(38%)选择MBCR。与患者干预偏好相关的主要主题包括:(1)对首选干预措施的期望;(2)干预知识;(3)过去的干预经验;(4)自我效能。参与者的平均治疗可接受性得分高于他们的首选方案比他们的非首选方案。结论:了解影响癌症幸存者对身心干预的偏好的因素,可以增加医疗保健提供者对临床环境中成功实施干预的障碍和促进因素的认识,并帮助患者做出明智的治疗决策,提高满意度和结果。临床试验注册号:: NCT03641222。
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
Journal of alternative and complementary medicine
Journal of alternative and complementary medicine 医学-全科医学与补充医学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine: Paradigm, Practice, and Policy Advancing Integrative Health is the leading peer-reviewed journal providing scientific research for the evaluation and integration of complementary and alternative medicine into mainstream medical practice. The Journal delivers original research that directly impacts patient care therapies, protocols, and strategies, ultimately improving the quality of healing. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine coverage includes: -Botanical Medicine -Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine -Other Traditional Medicine Practices -Mind-Body Medicine -Nutrition and Dietary Supplements -Integrative Health / Medicine -Yoga -Ayurveda -Naturopathy -Creative Arts Therapies -Integrative Whole Systems / Whole Practices -Homeopathy -Tai Chi -Qi Gong -Massage Therapy -Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine -Integrative Cost Studies / Comparative Effectiveness -Neurostimulation -Integrative Biophysics
×
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