Badaghi N, van Kruijsbergen M, Speckens A, Vilé J, Prins J, Kelders S, Kwakkenbos L. Group, Blended and Individual, Unguided Online Delivery of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for People With Cancer: Feasibility Uncontrolled Trial.
JMIR Form Res 2024;
8:e52338. [PMID:
38381493 PMCID:
PMC10918539 DOI:
10.2196/52338]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2023] [Revised: 11/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Online mindfulness based cognitive therapy (eMBCT) has been shown to reduce psychological distress in people with cancer. However, this population has reported lack of support and asynchronous communication as barriers to eMBCT, resulting in higher nonadherence rates than with face-to-face MBCT. Using a co-creation process, we developed 2 formats of eMBCT: group, blended (combination of therapist-guided group and individual online sessions) and individual, unguided (individual, unguided online sessions only). Group, blended eMBCT offers peer support and guidance, whereas individual, unguided eMBCT offers flexibility and the possibility of large-scale implementation.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this nonrandomized feasibility study was to assess aspects of feasibility of the group, blended and individual, unguided eMBCT interventions.
METHODS
Participants were people with cancer who chose between group, blended and individual, unguided eMBCT. Both intervention conditions followed the same 8-week eMBCT program, including an introductory session and a silent day (10 sessions total). All sessions for individual, unguided eMBCT occurred via the platform Minddistrict, whereas group, blended eMBCT consisted of 3 online videoconference sessions guided by a mindfulness teacher and 5 sessions via Minddistrict. We assessed the feasibility of the intervention quantitatively and qualitatively by evaluating its acceptability among participants. Additionally, we assessed limited efficacy by looking at the number of questionnaires participants completed pre- and postintervention.
RESULTS
We included 12 participants for each eMBCT condition. Participants in group, blended eMBCT completed, on average, 9.7 of 10 sessions, compared with an average 8.3 sessions for individual, unguided eMBCT (excluding dropouts). Of the 24 participants, 13 (54%) agreed to be interviewed (5 unguided and 8 blended). Participants in both conditions reported positive experiences, including the convenience of not having to travel and the flexibility to choose when and where to participate. However, among the barriers for participation, participants in the group, blended condition reported a preference for more group sessions, and participants in the individual, unguided condition reported a lack of guidance. Additionally, for the group, blended condition, the effect sizes were small for all outcome measures (Hedges g range=0.01-0.36), except for fatigue, which had a moderate effect size (Hedges g=0.57). For the individual, unguided condition, the effect sizes were small for all outcome measures (Hedges g range=0.24-0.46), except for mindfulness skills (Hedges g=0.52) and engagement with the intervention (Hedges g=1.53).
CONCLUSIONS
Participants in this study had a positive experience with group, blended and individual, unguided eMBCT. Based on the results from this study, we will adjust the intervention prior to conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial to evaluate effectiveness; we will add 1 group session to the group, blended eMBCT using Zoom as the platform for the group sessions; and we will send reminders to participants to complete questionnaires.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05336916; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05336916.
Collapse