Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 711–722 | Cite as

A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: accrual, retention, and data collection issues

  • Sylvie D. Lambert
  • Patrick McElduff
  • Afaf Girgis
  • Janelle V. Levesque
  • Tim W. Regan
  • Jane Turner
  • Hayley Candler
  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos
  • Sophy T. F. Shih
  • Karen Kayser
  • Peter Chong
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data.

Methods

Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview.

Results

One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners.

Conclusions

This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.

Keywords

Coping Pilot study Self-care Self-directed intervention Caregivers Partners 

References

  1. 1.
    Resendes LA, McCorkle R (2006) Spousal responses to prostate cancer: an intergrative review. Cancer Invest 24:192–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lambert S, Girgis A, Lecathelinais C, Stacey F (2013) Walking a mile in their shoes: anxiety and depression among caregivers of cancer survivors at six and 12 months post-diagnosis. Support Care Cancer 21:75–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lambert SD, Jones B, Girgis A, Lecathelinais C (2012) Distressed partners and caregivers do not recover easily: adjustment trajectories among partners and caregivers of cancer survivors. Ann Behav Med 44:225–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyes A, Girgis A, D'Este C, Zucca A (2011) Flourishing or floundering? Prevalence and correlates of anxiety and depression among a population-based sample of adult cancer survivors 6 months after diagnosis. J Affect Disord 135:184–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Northouse LL, Katapodi MC, Song L, Zhang L, Mood DW (2010) Interventions with family caregivers of cancer patients: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cancer J Clin 60:317–339Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Regan T, Lambert SD, Girgis A, Kelly B, Turner J, Kayser K (2012) Do couple-based interventions make a difference for couples affected by cancer? BMC Cancer 12:279PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scott JL, Halford KW, Ward BG (2004) United we stand? The effects of a couple-coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol 72:1122–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Regan T, Lambert S, Kelly B (2013) Uptake and attrition in couple-based interventions for cancer: perspectives from the literature. Psychooncology 22:2639–2647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobsen PB, Meade CD, Stein KD, Chirikos TN, Small BJ, Ruckdeschel JC (2002) Efficacy and costs of two forms of stress management training for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 20:2851–2862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beatty L, Koczwara B, Rice J, Wade T (2010) A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effects of a self-help workbook intervention on distress, coping and QOL after breast cancer diagnosis. Med J Aust 193(5 Suppl):S68–S73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lambert SD, Girgis A, Turner J, Regan T, Candler H, Britton B et al (2013) “"You need something like this to give you guidelines on what to do”: patients’ and partners’ use and perceptions of a self-directed, coping skills training resource. Support Care Cancer 21:3451–3460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lambert SD, Girgis A, Turner J, McElduff P, Kayser K, Vallentine P (2012) A pilot randomized controlled trial of the feasibility of a self-directed coping skills intervention for couples facing prostate cancer: rationale and design. Health Qual Life Outcomes 10:119PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Altman D, Schulz K, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D et al (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2012) Distress management clinical practice guidelines. National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacobsen PB, Donovan KA, Trask PC, Fleishman SB, Zabora J, Baker F et al (2005) Screening for psychologic distress in ambulatory cancer patients: a multicenter evaluation of the distress thermometer. Cancer 103:1494–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiat Scand 67:361–370Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bjelland I, Dahl A, Haug T, Neckelmann D (2002) The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 52:69–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiss DS, Marmar CR (1997) The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM (eds) Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD. Guilford, New York, pp 399–411Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manne S, Ostroff J, Fox K, Grana G, Winkel G (2009) Cognitive and social processes predicting partner psychological adaptation to early stage breast cancer. Br J Health Psychol 14:49–68PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richardson J, Khan M, Iezzi A, Sinha K, Mihalopoulos C, Herrman H, et al. (2009) The AQoL-8D (PsyQoL) MAU Instrument: overview September 2009 Research paper39, Centre for Health EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weitzner MA, Jacobsen PB, Wagner H, Friedland J, Cox C (1999) The Caregiver Quality of Life Index–Cancer (CQOLC) scale: development and validation of an instrument to measure quality of life of the family caregiver of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 8:55–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Busby DM, Christensen C, Crane DR, Larson JH (1995) A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. J Marital Fam Ther 21:289–308Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manne SL, Norton TR, Ostroff JS, Winkel G, Fox K, Grana G (2007) Protective buffering and psychological distress among couples coping with breast cancer: the moderating role of relationship satisfaction. J Fam Psychol 21:380–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kessler TA (1998) The Cognitive Appraisal of Health Scale: development of psychometric evaluation. Res Nurs Health 21:73–82Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mishel MH (1981) The measurement of uncertainty in illness. Nurs Res 30:258–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lambert SD, Yoon H, Ellis K, Northouse L (2015) Measuring appraisal during advanced cancer: psychometric testing of the Appraisal of Caregiving Scale. Patient Educ CounsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD et al (2007) Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer 110:2809–2818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lewis FM (1996) Family home visitation study final report. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health., BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wolf MS, Chang CH, Davis T, Makoul G (2005) Development and validation of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy Scale for Cancer (CASE-cancer). Patient Educ Couns 57:333–341Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carver CS (1997) You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the Brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 4:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooper C, Katona C, Orrell M, Livingston G (2008) Coping strategies, anxiety and depression in caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 23:929–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feldman BN, Broussard CA (2005) The influence of relational factors on men’s adjustment to their partners’ newly-diagnosed breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol 23:23–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bodenmann G (2008) Dyadisches Coping Inventar: Testmanual [Dyadic Coping Inventory: Test Manual]. Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Girgis A, Shih STF, Lambert SD, Mihalopoulos C (2011) My Cancer Care Cost Diary. University of New South Wales & Deakin UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Northouse L, Rosset T, Phillips L, Mood D, Schafenacker A, Kershaw T (2006) Research with families facing cancer: the challenges of accrual and retention. Res Nurs Health 29:199–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hacking B, Wallace L, Scott S, Kosmala-Anderson J, Belkora J, McNeill A (2013) Testing the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a ‘decision navigation’ intervention for early stage prostate cancer patients in Scotland—a randomised controlled trial. Psychooncology 22:1017–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berglund G, Petersson LM, Eriksson KC, Wallenius I, Roshanai A, Nordin KM et al (2007) “Between Men”: a psychosocial rehabilitation programme for men with prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 46:83–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lambert SD, Pallant J, Clover K, Britton B, King M, Carter G (2014) Using Rasch analysis to examine the distress thermometer’s cut-off scores among a mixed group of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 23(8):23, 2257–2265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Linden W, Satin JR (2007) Avoidable pitfalls in behavioral medicine outcome research. Ann Behav Med 33:143–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schneider S, Moyer A, Knapp-Oliver S, Sohl S, Cannella D, Targhetta V (2010) Pre-intervention distress moderates the efficacy of psychosocial treatment for cancer patients: a meta-analysis. J Behav Med 33:1–14PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lambert SD, Kelly B, Boyes A, Cameron A, Adams C, Proietto A et al (2014) Insights into preferences for psycho-oncology services among women with gynaecologic cancer following distress screening. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 12:899–906Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    van Scheppingen C, Schroevers MJ, Pool G, Smink A, Mul VE, Coyne JC et al (2013) Is implementing screening for distress an efficient means to recruit patients to a psychological intervention trial? Psychooncology 23:516–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Porter SR (2004) Raising response rates: what works? New Dir Inst Res 2004:5–21Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sahlqvist S, Song Y, Bull F, Adams E, Preston J, Ogilvie D et al (2011) Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:62PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kalantar JS, Talley NJ (1999) The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomized study. J Clin Epidemiol 52:1117–1122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mond JM, Rodgers B, Hay PJ, Owen C, Beumont PJ (2004) Mode of delivery, but not questionnaire length, affected response in an epidemiological study of eating-disordered behavior. J Clin Epidemiol 57:1167–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lavrakas PJ (2011) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van den Brink M, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM, Putter H, van de Velde CJH, Kievit J (2005) Self-reports of health-care utilization: diary or questionnaire? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21:298–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rutten LJ, Arora NK, Bakos AD, Aziz N, Rowland J (2005) Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980–2003). Patient Educ Couns 57:250–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie D. Lambert
    • 1
    • 3
  • Patrick McElduff
    • 2
  • Afaf Girgis
    • 3
  • Janelle V. Levesque
    • 3
  • Tim W. Regan
    • 4
  • Jane Turner
    • 5
  • Hayley Candler
    • 3
  • Cathrine Mihalopoulos
    • 6
  • Sophy T. F. Shih
    • 6
  • Karen Kayser
    • 7
  • Peter Chong
    • 8
  1. 1.Ingram School of NursingMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.School of Medicine and Public HealthThe University of NewcastleNew Lambton HeightsAustralia
  3. 3.Psycho-Oncology Research Group, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, UNSW MedicineThe University of New South WalesLiverpoolAustralia
  4. 4.Priority Research Centre for Health BehaviourThe University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  5. 5.The University of QueenslandHerstonAustralia
  6. 6.Deakin Health Economics, Faculty of HealthDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  7. 7.Kent School of Social WorkUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  8. 8.Lake Macquarie UrologyCharlestownAustralia

Personalised recommendations