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, Andrew McLennan, Katherine-Ann Piedalue, Peter M Wayne, Jennifer M Jones, 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.
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