Feasibility of a Psychosocial Rehabilitation Intervention to Enhance the Involvement of Relatives in Cancer Rehabilitation: Pilot Study for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background

Cancer often affects the quality of life and well-being of patients as well as their relatives. Previous studies have suggested that relatives should be involved in psychosocial rehabilitation to address the needs for an interpersonal relationship with others in the disease trajectory. We developed an innovative rehabilitation program to be offered to the patient and a relative as a pair.

Objective

The aim of the present pilot study was to examine the feasibility of the intervention in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and to evaluate the impact on quality of life.

Methods

The study was designed as an RCT comparing the new multimodal psychosocial rehabilitation with the usual services. The intervention comprised three ‘supportive talks’ and a residential rehabilitation course. From March 2010 to March 2011, participation was offered at the time of diagnosis to patients with lung or gynecological cancer from two departments at Odense University Hospital in Denmark. Questionnaires were used to estimate changes in quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 on global health status) and well-being (WHO-Five Well-Being Index) at baseline and after 2 and 12 months. Information on the participants’ views about the rehabilitation intervention was obtained from assessment charts and qualitative interviews.

Results

A total of 209 patients were assessed for eligibility, but only 42 pairs were randomized to the study. The 2-month follow-up was completed by 34 patients and 32 relatives, and 19 patients and 21 relatives completed the 12-month follow-up. A higher dropout rate at the 12-month follow-up was reported in the intervention group compared with controls. Quality of life and well-being increased for patients and relatives in both the intervention and the control group, and no clinically significant difference was observed between the intervention and the control group. Pairs reported that the time of inclusion was inconvenient and that rehabilitation ought to meet their changing needs.

Conclusions

The pilot study showed that it may be difficult to conduct an RCT of a psychosocial rehabilitation intervention for pairs, and difficulties with inclusion and drop out have to be addressed. Interventions need to be carefully developed and tested before evaluating an effect in a large-scale study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Hansen HP, Tjornhoj-Thomsen T. Cancer rehabilitation in Denmark: the growth of a new narrative. Med Anthropol Q. 2008;22(4):360–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kræftens B, Bispebjerg Hospital. Palliativ Medicinsk Afdeling. Forskningsenheden. Kræftpatientens verden: en undersøgelse af hvad danske kræftpatienter har brug for: resultater, vurderinger og forslag. [The world of the cancer patient—a study of problems expirienced by Danish cancer patients]. In Danish; 2006. http://www.cancer.dk/NR/rdonlyres/60C1A9F7-8B1A-400A-8455-547180CB0189/0/behovsundersogkort2006.pdf.

  3. 3.

    Hellbom M, Bergelt C, Bergenmar M, Gijsen B, Loge JH, Rautalahti M, et al. Cancer rehabilitation: A Nordic and European perspective. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):179–86.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health]. Styrket indsats på kræftområdet: et sundhedsfagligt oplæg. [Increased efforts within the field of cancer—suggestions from the health professionals.] In Danish; 2010 Version: 1.1. http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2010/PLAN/Kraeft/StyrketIndsatsPaaKraeftomraadet2010.pdf.

  5. 5.

    Ugolini D, Neri M, Cesario A, Bonassi S, Milazzo D, Bennati L, et al. Scientific production in cancer rehabilitation grows higher: a bibliometric analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(8):1629–38.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Northouse LL, Katapodi MC, Schafenacker AM, Weiss D. The impact of caregiving on the psychological well-being of family caregivers and cancer patients. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2012;28(4):236–45.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pinto BM, Eakin E, Maruyama NC. Health behavior changes after a cancer diagnosis: what do we know and where do we go from here? Ann Behav Med. 2000;22(1):38–52.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Li J, Girgis A. Supportive care needs: are patients with lung cancer a neglected population? Psychooncology 2006;15(6):509–16.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hoybye MT, Dalton SO, Christensen J, Larsen LR, Kuhn KG, Jensen JN, et al. Research in Danish cancer rehabilitation: social characteristics and late effects of cancer among participants in the FOCARE research project. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(1):47–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chambers SK, Pinnock C, Lepore SJ, Hughes S, O’Connell DL. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer and their partners. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):e75–88.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Thorsen L, Gjerset GM, Loge JH, Kiserud CE, Skovlund E, Flotten T, et al. Cancer patients’ needs for rehabilitation services. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):212–22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Dalton SO, Bidstrup PE, Johansen C. Rehabilitation of cancer patients: needed, but how? Acta Oncol 2011;50(2):163–6.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Boesen EH, Ross L, Frederiksen K, Thomsen BL, Dahlstrom K, Schmidt G, et al. Psychoeducational intervention for patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma: a replication study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(6):1270–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ross L, Boesen EH, Dalton SO, Johansen C. Mind and cancer: does psychosocial intervention improve survival and psychological well-being? Eur J Cancer. 2002;38(11):1447–57.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ernstmann N, Neumann M, Ommen O, Galushko M, Wirtz M, Voltz R, et al. Determinants and implications of cancer patients’ psychosocial needs. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(11):1417–23.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Glasdam S, Timm H, Vittrup R. Support efforts for caregivers of chronically ill persons. Clin Nurs Res. 2010;19(3):233–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Adamsen L, Quist M, Andersen C, Moller T, Herrstedt J, Kronborg D, et al. Effect of a multimodal high intensity exercise intervention in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;339(oct13_1):b3410.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fors EA, Bertheussen GF, Thune I, Juvet LK, Elvsaas IK, Oldervoll L, et al. Psychosocial interventions as part of breast cancer rehabilitation programs? Results from a systematic review. Psycho-Oncology. 2011;20(9):909–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Northouse LL, Katapodi MC, Song L, Zhang L, Mood DW. Interventions with family caregivers of cancer patients: meta-analysis of randomized trials. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):317–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ockerby C, Livingston P, O’Connell B, Gaskin CJ. The role of informal caregivers during cancer patients’ recovery from chemotherapy. Scand J Caring Sci. 2013;27(1):147–55

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Given BA, Northouse L. Who cares for family caregivers of patients with cancer? Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2011;15(5):451–2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Foged M, Schulze S, Freil M. Pårørendes forventninger og behov for medinddragelse i patienters indlæggelsesforløb: en kvalitativ undersøgelse af pårørende til medicinske patienter: forsknings- og udviklingsrapport om pårørendes behov for medinddragelse. [The relatives’ expectations of and needs for involvement in the admission trajectory. A qualitative study of the relatives to medical patients]. Hillerød Region Hovedstaden; 2007. In Danish.

  23. 23.

    Eriksson E, Arve S, Lauri S. Informational and emotional support received by relatives before and after the cancer patient’s death. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2006;10(1):48–58.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Teschendorf B, Schwartz C, Ferrans CE, O’Mara A, Novotny P, Sloan J. Caregiver role stress: when families become providers. Cancer Control. 2007;14(2):183–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Arnaert A, Gabos T, Ballenas V, Rutledge RDH. Contributions of a retreat weekend to the healing and coping of cancer patients’ relatives. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(2):197–208.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Thomas C, Morris SM, Harman JC. Companions through cancer: the care given by informal carers in cancer contexts. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(4):529–44.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Nakaya N, Saito-Nakaya K, Bidstrup PE, Dalton SO, Frederiksen K, Steding-Jessen M, et al. Increased risk of severe depression in male partners of women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(23):5527–34.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Northouse LL, Mood DW, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, et al. Living with prostate cancer: patients’ and spouses’ psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(27):4171–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Chan YM, Ngan HYS, Yip PSF, Li BYG, Lau OWK, Tang GWK. Psychosocial adjustment in gynecologic cancer survivors: a longitudinal study on risk factors for maladjustment. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80(3):387–94.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Klee M, Thranov I, Machin PD. The patients’ perspective on physical symptoms after radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;76(1):14–23.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chapple A, Ziebland S, McPherson A. Stigma, shame, and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1470.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Bakas T, Lewis RR, Parsons JE. Caregiving tasks among family caregivers of patients with lung cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28(5):847–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Angen MJ, Simpson JS, Macrae H, Hundleby M. Impact of a residential psychosocial program for cancer patients: a focus group investigation. Adv Mind Body Med. 2003;19(3–4):24–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Eriksson E, Lauri S. Informational and emotional support for cancer patients’ relatives. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2000;9(1):8–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ka’opua LS, Gotay CC, Boehm PS. Spiritually based resources in adaptation to long-term prostate cancer survival: perspectives of elderly wives. Health Soc Work. 2007;32(1):29–39.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Scott JL, Halford WK, Ward BG. United we stand? The effects of a couple-coping intervention on adjustment to early stage breast or gynecological cancer. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(6):1122–35.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hagedoorn M, Dagan M, Puterman E, Hoff C, Meijerink WJ, DeLongis A, et al. Relationship satisfaction in couples confronted with colorectal cancer: the interplay of past and current spousal support. J Behav Med. 2011;34(4):288–97.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Hagedoorn M, Kreicbergs U, Appel C. Coping with cancer: the perspective of patients’ relatives. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):205–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hagedoorn M, Kuijer RG, Buunk BP, DeJong GM, Wobbes T, Sanderman R. Marital satisfaction in patients with cancer: does support from intimate partners benefit those who need it the most? Health Psychol. 2000;19(3):274–82.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Parker PA, Davison BJ, Tishelman C, Brundage MD. What do we know about facilitating patient communication in the cancer care setting? Psychooncology. 2005;14(10):848–58.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, et al. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer. 2007;110(12):2809–18.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Northouse LL. Helping patients and their family caregivers cope with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2012;39(5):500–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Sutton LB, Erlen JA. Effects of mutual dyad support on quality of life in women with breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(6):488–98.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    McLean LM, Jones JM, Rydall AC, Walsh A, Esplen MJ, Zimmermann C, et al. A couples intervention for patients facing advanced cancer and their spouse caregivers: outcomes of a pilot study. Psychooncology. 2008;17(11):1152–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Myers SB, Manne SL, Kissane DW, Ozga M, Kashy DA, Rubin S, et al. Social-cognitive processes associated with fear of recurrence among women newly diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128(1):120–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Northouse LL, Mood D, Templin T, Mellon S, George T. Couples’ patterns of adjustment to colon cancer. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(2):271–84.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Manne S, Badr H, Kashy DA. A longitudinal analysis of intimacy processes and psychological distress among couples coping with head and neck or lung cancers. J Behav Med. 2012;35(3):334–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Seibaek L, Petersen LK, Blaakaer J, Hounsgaard L. Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst: the lived experiences of women undergoing ovarian cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012;21(3):360–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Johnson RL, Gold MA, Wyche KF. Distress in women with gynecologic cancer. Psychooncology. 2010;19(6):665–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Stone AM, Mikucki-Enyart S, Middleton A, Caughlin JP, Brown LE. Caring for a parent with lung cancer. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(7):957–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Angen MJ, MacRae JH, Simpson JS, Hundleby M. Tapestry: a retreat program of support for persons living with cancer. Cancer Pract. 2002;10(6):297–304.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Grunfeld E. Primary care physicians and oncologists are players on the same team. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2246–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Chan R, Webster J, Bennett L. Effects and feasibility of a multi-disciplinary orientation program for newly registered cancer patients: design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:203.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Wynia K, Annema C, Nissen H, De KJ, Middel B. Design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of a Dutch patient advocacy case management intervention among severely disabled multiple sclerosis patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:142.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Patton MQ. Depth Interviewing. In: Patton MQ, editor. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. 2nd ed. 1987. p. 108–44.

  56. 56.

    Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing1995, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. xviii, 254 p.

  57. 57.

    Sprangers MA, Cull A, Groenvold M, Bjordal K, Blazeby J, Aaronson NK. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: an update and overview. EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(4):291–300.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Bech P, Gudex C, Johansen KS. The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: validation in diabetes. Psychother Psychosom. 1996;65(4):183–90.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK. Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12(2):85–91.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.

  62. 62.

    Bird L, Arthur A, Cox K. “Did the trial kill the intervention?” Experiences from the development, implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:24.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Ross L, Frederiksen K, Boesen SH, Karlsen RV, Rasmussen MS, Sorensen LT, et al. No effect on survival of home psychosocial intervention in a randomized study of Danish colorectal cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2009;18(8):875–85.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Rottmann N, Dalton SO, Bidstrup PE, Wurtzen H, Hoybye MT, Ross L, et al. No improvement in distress and quality of life following psychosocial cancer rehabilitation. A randomised trial. Psychooncology. 2012;21(5):505–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Boesen EH, Karlsen R, Christensen J, Paaschburg B, Nielsen D, Bloch IS, et al. Psychosocial group intervention for patients with primary breast cancer: a randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(9):1363–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    McCabe C, Cronin P. Issues for researchers to consider when using health-related quality of life outcomes in cancer research. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20(5):563–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321(7262):694–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Hansen HP, Tjornhoj-Thomsen T, Johansen C. Rehabilitation interventions for cancer survivors: The influence of context. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(2):259–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Hack TF, Carlson L, Butler L, Degner LF, Jakulj F, Pickles T, et al. Facilitating the implementation of empirically valid interventions in psychosocial oncology and supportive care. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(8):1097–105.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society (Grant number OKV 08008).

Author Contributions

JK, OM, EJ, and HPH conceived the study and developed the design of the overall study. The study was conducted by LL in collaboration with OM, EJ, KLC, and HPH. RDC performed the statistical analyses in collaboration with LL. LL drafted the manuscript, and all authors were involved in critically revising it. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Contributors

We thank the patients and their relatives who participated in the study. We acknowledge the work of the project nurse, Biddy Madsen, and the important collaboration with nurses from Odense University Hospital, Gitte Bekker, Susanne Pedersen, and Camilla A. Holt, and also the staff at Rehabilitation Center Dallund. The Danish Milieu for Humanistic Cancer Research (http://www.mifohuk.dk) provided support for discussions and writing seminars.

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest, and the authors alone are responsible for the content of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loni Ledderer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ledderer, L., la Cour, K., Mogensen, O. et al. Feasibility of a Psychosocial Rehabilitation Intervention to Enhance the Involvement of Relatives in Cancer Rehabilitation: Pilot Study for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Patient 6, 201–212 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-013-0019-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gynecological Cancer
  • Rehabilitation Service
  • Rehabilitation Intervention
  • Global Health Status
  • Supportive Talk