A Prospective Outcomes Pilot Evaluation of Inspire Now: A Program for People with Lung Cancer. (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Conte, Ellen; Legacy, Mark; Psihogios, Athanasios; Pitman, Anne; Redway, Andrea; Hamer-Wilson, Jill; Seely, Dugald
• Is Part Of: Integrative cancer therapies. Volume 19(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: lung cancer -- group support -- integrative medicine -- psychosocial oncology -- yoga -- mind body medicine -- supportive care; Cancer -- Alternative treatment -- Periodicals; 616.99406
• DOI: 10.1177/1534735420983472
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1534-7354

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Canada, yet patients are often under-supported. A six-week program called Inspire Now, created to address unmet supportive care needs, was evaluated in this study. Feasibility and preliminary outcomes were assessed in order to inform future changes to the program. Objectives: (1) Assess the feasibility of the program and its evaluation; (2) pilot the collection of patient-reported outcomes; (3) identify outcomes that may be positively influenced; and (4) inform program modifications. Methods: Participants were recruited from the first session of Inspire Now for an observational pilot study. The primary outcome was feasibility. Secondary outcomes included within-person changes in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Lung (FACT-L) and Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW), and program satisfaction and qualitative experiences of participants and facilitators through internally-developed questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Analysis was primarily descriptive, within person changes in FACT-L and MYCaW were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and qualitative data was assessed for common themes. Results: The program and its evaluation were feasible; 8 of 9 (89%) participants consented to the study, median attendance was 6 of 6 sessions (IQR 4.5-6), and questionnaire completion was 100% at baseline and 75% at follow-up. There were clinically meaningful improvements in MYCaW concern 1 (−1.2, 95% CI −2.0 to −0.4) and overall wellbeing (−0.9, 95% CI −2.1 to 0.4). Seven of eight FACT-L sub-sections trended toward improvement, with absolute changes ranging from −1.7 to 10.8%. Participant feedback was overwhelmingly positive; group support and social interactions were highly valued. Conclusions: The group intervention for people with lung cancer was feasible to both run and evaluate. Participants responded positively to the program. Findings will inform changes to future sessions and an analysis of multiple sessions is planned.