Interprofessional, psycho‐social intervention to facilitate resilience and reduce supportive care needs for patients with cancer: Results of a noncomparative, randomized phase II trial. Issue 7 (4th May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Eicher, Manuela; Ribi, Karin; Senn‐Dubey, Catherine; Senn, Stefanie; Ballabeni, Pierluigi; Betticher, Daniel
• Is Part Of: Psycho-oncology. Volume 27:Issue 7(2018)
• Page Start: 1833
• Page End: 1839
• Publication Date: 2018-05-04
• Subjects: cancer -- complex intervention -- interprofessional supportive care -- nursing -- oncology -- resilience -- supportive care needs; Cancer -- Psychological aspects -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- psychology -- Periodicals; 616.9940019
• DOI: 10.1002/pon.4734
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1057-9249

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: We developed 2 intensity levels of a complex intervention for interprofessional supportive care in cancer (IPSC‐C) to facilitate resilience and reduce unmet supportive care needs. We aimed to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of both intensity levels in routine practice. Methods: In a randomized, noncomparative phase II trial, newly diagnosed patients received either low (LI‐IPSC‐C) or high (HI‐IPSC‐C) intensity interventions. Low‐intensity‐interprofessional supportive care in cancer (LI‐IPSC‐C) consisted of 3 electronic assessments of resilience, unmet supportive care needs, mood, and coping effort over 16 weeks with an immediate feedback to clinicians including tailored intervention recommendations to facilitate resilience and supportive care. High‐intensity‐interprofessional supportive care in cancer (HI‐IPSC‐C) added 5 structured consultations (face‐to‐face and telephone) provided by specialized nurses. Primary outcome was a change ≥5 in resilience score on the Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC). Secondary outcomes were unmet supportive care needs, mood, and coping effort. We assessed feasibility by clinician‐provided tailored interventions as recommended and acceptability through qualitative interviews with clinicians and patients. Results: In the LI‐IPSC‐C arm, 11 of 41, in the HI‐IPSC‐C arm 17 of 43, patients increased resilience scores by ≥5. Relatively more patients decreased unmet needs in HI‐IPSC‐C arm. Mood, in both arms, and coping effort, in HI‐IPSC‐C arm, improved meaningfully. Feasibility was limited for the LI‐IPSC‐C arm, mainly due to lack of time; acceptability was high in both arms. Conclusion: Neither LI‐IPSC‐C nor HI‐IPSC‐C interventions reached the desired threshold. HI‐IPSC‐C showed positive effects on secondary outcomes and was feasible. Resilience as measured by the CD‐RISC may not be the optimal outcome measure for this intervention.