Fiona Sinclair, David Gillanders, Christopher Hewitt, Natalie Rooney, Christine Bonathan, Lauren McAllister, Marta Correia, Lynsey Devlin, Kirsty Hendry
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.