Feasibility randomised controlled trial of a guided workbook intervention to support work-related goals among cancer survivors in the UK

Effectiveness of a phone-based support program on self-care self-efficacy, psychological distress, and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a Phone-Based Support Program (PBSP) for newly diagnosed women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A two-group repeated measures randomized controlled trial was designed. Participants included 94 patients aged 18-60 years who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer and undergoing chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital in China. They were randomly assigned to the intervention and the control groups. Participants in the intervention group were enrolled in a four-session PBSP, consisting of four interactive sections: learning, discussion, ask-the-expert, and personal stories, plus the routine care. Outcomes included patients' self-care self-efficacy, psychological distress (including symptom distress, anxiety, and depression), and quality of life. These were assessed at three time points: pre-intervention (T1), post-intervention (T2), and follow-up (T3) by using the self-care self-efficacy scale, the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and the global health status scale.

RESULTS

After completion of the intervention, participants in the intervention group had significantly (p < .001) higher self-care self-efficacy (T2: Mdiff = 11.49, T3: Mdiff = 22.33), better quality of life (T2: Mdiff = 8.18, T3: Mdiff = 17.19), lower symptom distress (T2: Mdiff = -26.68, T3: Mdiff = -54.76), less anxiety (T2: Mdiff = -2.52, T3: Mdiff = -5.11), and less depression (T2: Mdiff = -3.61, T3: Mdiff = -6.71) than those in the control group.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that the PBSP is effective. Healthcare professionals, especially nurses, could utilize it to enhance self-care self-efficacy and quality of life, as well as decrease psychological distress among women newly diagnosed breast cancer.

REGISTRATION

The Thai Clinical Trial Registry #TCTR20230321010.

The effects of common-sense model interventions on cancer patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

From the time of new diagnosis to treatment, cancer patients experience a variety of health problems that can affect the patient's health outcomes. Individuals with cancer are being given increasing responsibility for the self-management of their health and illness. The self-regulating common-sense model (CSM) is effective in patients' disease management. This article briefly introduces the common-sense model intervention, in which patients with cancer are affected by these interventions, what they are about, and what effects they have.

METHODS

The authors systematically review evidence for the common-sense model of self-regulation for cancer using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Based on a comprehensive literature search, we searched the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, CNKI, and WanFang databases. The included studies underwent a quality assessment using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP).

RESULTS

Eleven empirical studies illustrated the aspects of common-sense model interventions for cancer patients. It is concluded that common-sense model intervention has an effect on symptoms in cancer treatment, behavior, and quality of life, but more studies are needed to verify the use of common-sense model intervention to explore in patients with different cancers. The systematic review summarized a four-point paradigm about intervention content, including assessing the current situation, setting goals, having a disease education and psychological adjustment, and getting feedback for further response. However, the application of intervention requires specific analysis of patient behavior and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Common-sense model interventions are beneficial for the self-management of cancer patients; however, more intervention studies are needed to specify the cognitive, emotional, and coping styles of people with a particular cancer.

Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer

BACKGROUND

People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

Interventions for work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors: a systematic review

Background: Supporting unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors in their work participation can have extensive individual and societal benefits. We aimed to identify and summarise interventions for work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors.Methods: Five databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for quantitative studies on interventions aimed at enhancing work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors. Work participation refers to participation in the workforce, fulfilling one's work role. Manual and automatic screening (with ASReview software) were performed on titles and abstracts, followed by manual full-text screening. Data were extracted regarding study, patient and intervention characteristics, and work participation outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 and QUIPS tools.Results: We identified 10,771 articles, of which we included two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of which one feasibility RCT, and three cohort studies. In total, 1862 cancer survivors were included, with predominantly breast cancer. Work participation was mainly measured as time to return to work (RTW) and RTW rate. Interventions included components of coaching (e.g., psychological or rehabilitation), training (e.g., building confidence and managing fatigue) and self-management. Two RCTs with unclear RoB did not show an effect of multicomponent interventions compared to care as usual. One cohort study found a significant effect of a psycho-educational intervention on RTW rates, with moderate RoB. The other two cohort studies, with moderate RoB, reported significant associations between components including job search and placement assistance, and work participation.Discussion: Only few interventions aimed at enhancing work participation of unemployed or work-disabled cancer survivors, have been evaluated. In two cohort studies, promising components for future multicomponent interventions were identified. However, findings suggest that more evidence is necessary on such multicomponent interventions, in which elements explicitly directed at work and including the workplace should be included.

Efficacy of Work-Related Support Rehabilitation for Patients with Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction The efficacy of work-related support rehabilitation for patients with cancer remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of work-related support rehabilitation on the quality of life in patients with cancer.

Methods We have searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Ebsco, and Cochrane library databases through August 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of work-related support rehabilitation on the quality of life in patients with cancer. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

Results Four RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with usual care for cancer patients, work-related support is associated with significantly improved quality of life physical score (PCS, standard mean difference [SMD]=0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.06 to 0.37; P=0.005) and reduced quality of life pain (SMD=−0.16; 95% CI=−0.31 to 0; P=0.04), but showed no obvious impact on quality of life mental score (MCS, SMD=0; 95% CI=−0.28 to 0.28; P=0.98), time of return to work (SMD=−0.78; 95% CI=−2.71 to 1.14; P=0.43), or the scores of work ability (SMD=−0.01; 95% CI=−0.16 to 9.09; P=0.13) and work limitation (SMD=0.12; 95% CI=−0.16 to 0.40; P=0.41).

Conclusions Work-related support rehabilitation may be effective to improve the quality of life of cancer patients.

Psychological and educational support for cancer patients who return to work: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience challenges when they return to work (RTW) following cancer diagnosis and treatment. Psycho-educational support is important to facilitate the RTW process. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review examined published reports on psycho-educational support for patients with cancer who RTW. METHODS: We followed the preferred reported items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement and the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), and ICHUSHI and performed manual searches. RESULTS: We retrieved 1,586 articles and retained 48 for analysis (published January 2000 to December 2020). Physicians, occupational physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists provide considerable support in hospitals. Delivery modes included individual, face-to-face, and workbook. Psychological support included emotional, stress coping, counseling, and knowledge. Educational support included information or advice provision, communication skills, problem discussion, and work planning. Employment status was typically the primary outcome. We included 50 measurement scales across quality of life, cognitive functioning and illness, self-efficacy, psychological distress, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This review elucidated psycho-educational support for patients with cancer who RTW, and measurement tools for related effects. Based on the characteristics of the psycho-educational support revealed in this study, future studies should examine the development, intervention, and implementation of support programs for patients’ RTW.

Exploration of interventions to enhance return-to-work for cancer patients: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

With the increasing incidence and earlier onset of cancer, more and more cancer patients are facing the problems of return-to-work. This review is to explore the types, contents, and results of return-to-work interventions for cancer patients.

METHODS

This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR List. Three Chinese databases and five English databases were searched from the establishment of databases to 31 March, 2021. Article selection and data extraction were conducted by two researchers.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies and 1916 cancer patients with mainly breast and gastrointestinal cancer were included. According to the contents, interventions could be divided into four types: (1) physical interventions (n = 6), including high-intensity exercise, low-to-moderate intensity exercise, yoga, and upper limb functional training, (2) psychological interventions (n = 2), including early active individualized psychosocial support and mindfulness-based recovery, (3) vocational interventions (n = 14), including making work plans, educational leaflets, vocational consultations, electronic health intervention, and interventions targeting at employers, (4) multidisciplinary interventions (n = 10), including any combination of above interventions. Physical exercises, making working plans, vocational consultations, educational leaflets, two combinations of vocational and physical interventions were validated to have positive results in enhancing cancer patients' return-to-work.

CONCLUSIONS

Return-to-work interventions for cancer patients are diversified and can be divided into physical, psychological, vocational, and multidisciplinary interventions. Medical staffs can utilize physical exercises, making working plans, vocational consultation, educational leaflets, combinations of vocational and physical interventions to enhance cancer patients' return-to-work. Other interventions still need to be developed and validated.

Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study

BACKGROUND

Hip and knee replacements are regularly carried out for patients who work. There is little evidence about these patients' needs and the factors influencing their return to work. There is a paucity of guidance to help patients return to work after surgery and a need for structured occupational advice to enable them to return to work safely and effectively.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an occupational advice intervention to support early recovery to usual activities including work that is tailored to the requirements of patients undergoing hip or knee replacements. To test the acceptability, practicality and feasibility of this intervention within current care frameworks.

DESIGN

An intervention mapping approach was used to develop the intervention. The research methods employed were rapid evidence synthesis, qualitative interviews with patients and stakeholders, a prospective cohort study, a survey of clinical practice and a modified Delphi consensus process. The developed intervention was implemented and assessed during the final feasibility stage of the intervention mapping process.

SETTING

Orthopaedic departments in NHS secondary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients who were in work and intending to return to work following primary elective hip or knee replacement surgery, health-care professionals and employers.

INTERVENTIONS

Occupational advice intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Development of an occupational advice intervention, fidelity of the developed intervention when delivered in a clinical setting, patient and clinician perspectives of the intervention and preliminary assessments of intervention effectiveness and cost.

RESULTS

A cohort study (154 patients), 110 stakeholder interviews, a survey of practice (152 respondents) and evidence synthesis provided the necessary information to develop the intervention. The intervention included information resources, a personalised return-to-work plan and co-ordination from the health-care team to support the delivery of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives. To support delivery, a range of tools (e.g. occupational checklists, patient workbooks and employer information), roles (e.g. return-to-work co-ordinator) and training resources were created. Feasibility was assessed for 21 of the 26 patients recruited from three NHS trusts. Adherence to the defined performance objectives was 75% for patient performance objectives and 74% for staff performance objectives. The intervention was generally well received, although the short time frame available for implementation and concurrent research evaluation led to some confusion among patients and those delivering the intervention regarding its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of key staff.

LIMITATIONS

Implementation and uptake of the intervention was not standardised and was limited by the study time frame. Evaluation of the intervention involved a small number of patients, which limited the ability to assess it.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed occupational advice intervention supports best practice. Evaluation demonstrated good rates of adherence against defined performance objectives. However, a number of operational and implementation issues require further attention.

FUTURE WORK

The intervention warrants a randomised controlled trial to assess its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to improve rates and timing of sustained return to work after surgery. This research should include the development of a robust implementation strategy to ensure that adoption is sustained.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27426982 and PROSPERO CRD42016045235.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Using intervention mapping to develop an occupational advice intervention to aid return to work following hip and knee replacement in the United Kingdom

Background

There are increasing numbers of total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) being performed in patients of working age. Providing patients undergoing TKR and THR with return to work advice might facilitate return to work. The aim of this paper is to report on the process used to systematically develop an occupational advice intervention to be delivered in hospital for those undergoing arthroplasty.

Methods

The six-step Intervention Mapping (IM) approach to development, implementation and evaluation of a theory and evidence-based interventions was followed. This paper reports on the development of the intervention covered by steps 1 to 4 of the IM process. Steps 1–3 gathered data on current practice and barriers to change using a mixed methods approach (cohort study of patients undergoing THR or TKR, stakeholder interviews, survey of practice, evidence synthesis) and provided a theoretical framework for intervention development. Step 4 used information from steps 1–3 in combination with a Delphi consensus process to develop the intervention and the associated tools and materials to facilitate its delivery.

Results

The final intervention identified included a number of core principles including: early patient identification; delivery of key information to patients and their employers; assessment and support by a member of the orthopaedic team; procedures for escalation based on patient need; mechanisms to support communication; and training and support for the clinical teams delivering care. A total of 13 patient and 20 staff performance objectives as delivery requirements, were supported by a range of tools, roles and training resources. The intervention addressed outcomes based at the individual and interpersonal levels of the ecological model.

Conclusions

Following the IM approach resulted in a structured and justified occupational intervention for delivery in secondary care for patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement. The feasibility of the intervention will subsequently be tested alongside further investigation to establish its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.