Development and preliminary testing of PROGRESS: a Web-based education program for prostate cancer survivors transitioning from active treatment
- 548 Downloads
This formative research study describes the development and preliminary evaluation of a theory-guided, online multimedia psycho-educational program (PROGRESS) designed to facilitate adaptive coping among prostate cancer patients transitioning from treatment into long-term survivorship.
Guided by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing Model (C-SHIP) and using health communications best practices, we conducted a two-phase, qualitative formative research study with early stage prostate cancer patients (n = 29) to inform the Web program development. Phase 1 included individual (n = 5) and group (n = 12) interviews to help determine intervention content and interface. Phase 2 employed iterative user/usability testing (n = 12) to finalize the intervention. Interview data were independently coded and collectively analyzed to achieve consensus.
Survivors expressed interest in action-oriented content on (1) managing treatment side effects, (2) handling body image and comorbidities related to overweight/obesity, (3) coping with emotional and communication issues, (4) tips to reduce disruptions of daily living activities, and (5) health skills training tools. Patients also desired the use of realistic and diverse survivor images.
Incorporation of an established theoretical framework, application of multimedia intervention development best practices, and an evidence-based approach to content and format resulted in a psycho-educational tool that comprehensively addresses survivors’ needs in a tailored fashion.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
The results suggest that an interactive Web-based multimedia program is useful for survivors if it covers the key topics of symptom control, emotional well-being, and coping skills training; this tool has the potential to be disseminated and implemented as an adjunct to routine clinical care.
KeywordsProstate cancer Survivorship Web-based health intervention development Patient activation C-SHIP model Health adaptation and surveillance
This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute grants, R01 CA158019 to Dr. Miller and the Fox Chase Cancer Center Behavioral Research Core Facility P30-CA06927. Dr. Hudson was supported by the following awards from the National Cancer Institute: K01 CA 131500, R03 CA154063, and R01 CA176838. Dr. Hui was supported by the National Cancer Institute grant R03 CA159903. Dr. Diefenbach was supported by the following awards from the National Cancer Institute: 1R01 CA158019-01, 1R21 CA155963, 1R21 CA164807; and W81XWH-11-1-0604, from the Department of Defense. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of James Williams and the patients who participated in this study or appeared in the patient videos for the Web program development. We thank the clinicians who appeared in the videos, Drs. Natan Bar-Chama, Neil Grafstein, and Christian Nelson. Other research team members, including Margaret Atchison, Javier Muniz, Craig Walt, Megan Grau, Eric Shaw, Sean O’Sullivan, Martin Cohen, Jennifer Burns, and Matt Hall, also made contributions to this study. We also thank Mary Anne Ryan for her technical and administrative assistance. Last but not least, we thank the team members from NotSoldSeparately.com, Kevin Durr, Joe Ifi, Mayr Budny, Dan Alvare, and Anthony Wojtkowiak, for their help in the technical process of the website development and implementation.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society; 2014.Google Scholar
- 4.American Cancer Society. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2014–2015. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society; 2014.Google Scholar
- 22.Miller SM, Diefenbach MA. The Cognitive-Social Health Information-Processing (C-SHIP model: A theoretical Framework for Research in Behavioral Oncology. In: Krantz DS, Baum A, editors. Technology and Methods in Behavioral Medicine. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1998. p. 219–44.Google Scholar
- 23.Miller SM et al. Tailoring psychosocial interventions to the individual’s health information-processing style: The influence of monitoring versus blunting in cancer risk and disease. In: Baum A, Andersen B, editors. Psychosocial interventions for cancer. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001. p. 343–62.Google Scholar
- 24.Project, P.R.I. Internet User Demographics, As of January 2014, 87 % of American adults use the internet. Internet and Tech 2014 [cited 2014 April]; Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats
- 26.Carpenter, K.M., et al., An online stress management workbook for breast cancer. J Behav Med, 2012Google Scholar
- 32.McPherson, D.A. and D.A. Herxheimer. healthtalk.org. [cited 2014; Available from: http://www.healthtalk.org/.
- 33.Wootten A et al. Development, feasibility and usability of an online psychological intervention for men with prostate cancwer: My road ahead. Internet Interv. 2014;1.Google Scholar
- 38.Rudd, R.E. Guidelines for Creating Materials-Resources for Developing and Assessing Materials. 2014; Available from: www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy.edu.
- 39.Osborne H. Health literacy from a to Z, second edition: practical ways to communicate your health message. Burlington: Jones&Bartlett Learning; 2011.Google Scholar
- 40.Doak, C., L. Doak, and J. Root, Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 1985, Philadelphia: JB Lippincott.Google Scholar
- 41.Venderbos, L.D., et al., A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels. Psychooncology, 2014Google Scholar
- 46.Neilsen J. Usability engineering. Cambridge: Elsevier; 1994.Google Scholar
- 48.Crabtree, B.F. and W.L. Miller, Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. 1999, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. xvii, 406 p.Google Scholar
- 49.Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña, Qualitative data analysis : a methods sourcebook. Third edition. ed. 2014, Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc. xxiii, 381 pages.Google Scholar
- 51.Connell RW. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995.Google Scholar
- 52.Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept gender. Society. 2005;19(6):829–59.Google Scholar
- 55.Weiss, D.S. and C.R. Marmar, The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, in Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD, J.P. Wilson and T.M. Keane, Editors. 1996, Guilford: New York.Google Scholar