Guided versus non-guided digital psychological interventions for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of engagement and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate engagement with and efficacy of guided versus non-guided digital interventions targeting psychological symptoms of cancer via a systematic review of current evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched. Eligible publications were randomised controlled trials of guided or non-guided digital psychological interventions used in cancer settings reporting intervention efficacy and/or engagement. Study methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on outcomes with sufficient data, with sub-group analyses of intervention type and follow-up period. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Studies varied by level of guidance, type of technology used, duration, and outcomes assessed. Most studies had a high overall RoB. Meta-analysis indicated that guided interventions significantly reduced distress, anxiety, and fatigue, while non-guided did not. For depression and quality of life, both guided and non-guided interventions produced significant improvements. Guided interventions reported higher levels of intervention engagement than non-guided. CONCLUSIONS: Guided digital psychological interventions were likely to be more effective than non-guided ones for cancer patients, particularly in reducing distress, anxiety, and fatigue. Whilst both types were found to improve depression and life quality, guided interventions were associated with higher patient engagement. These findings suggest digital interventions could supplement traditional cancer care, warranting further research concerning long-term effects and cost-efficiency.

The Ottawa clinical fear of recurrence instruments: A screener, self-report, and clinical interview.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) was recently defined by a group of experts during a Delphi study. Five criteria were agreed upon, namely: (a) high levels of preoccupation, (b) high levels of worry, (c) that are persistent, (d) hypervigilance and hypersensitivity to physical sensations that e) may result in functional impairment. No existing instruments comprehensively capture all these criteria for clinical FCR. METHODS: To remedy this gap, a set of three patient-reported outcome instruments including a one-item screener, self-report questionnaire, and semi-structured clinical interview, named the Ottawa Clinical Fear of Recurrence instruments, were developed. To do so, the research team first conducted a literature review of potential items. Additional FCR experts discussed the content of the screener and interview. The self-report's items were assessed for content validity by the same expert panel using Likert ratings and the Content Validity Index to narrow down the number of items. The three instruments were piloted with a group of cancer survivors to assess face validity following the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations. RESULTS: The literature review and content validity assessment led to a final draft pre-pilot of 23 potential items for the self-report questionnaire. The instruments were piloted. Pilot study participants suggested changing wording and response options (particularly for the self-report) for greater clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the feedback received, minor modifications were made, mostly for the self-report. In general, content and face validity for the three instruments were good for both experts and cancer survivors.

Missingness mechanisms and generalizability of patient reported outcome measures in colorectal cancer survivors - assessing the reasonableness of the "missing completely at random" assumption.

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) provide important information, however, missing PROM data threaten the interpretability and generalizability of findings by introducing potential bias. This study aims to provide insight into missingness mechanisms and inform future researchers on generalizability and possible methodological solutions to overcome missing PROM data problems during data collection and statistical analyses. METHODS: We identified 10,236 colorectal cancer survivors (CRCs) above 18y, diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 through the Danish Clinical Registries. We invited a random 20% (2,097) to participate in a national survey in May 2023. We distributed reminder e-mails at day 10 and day 20, and compared Initial Responders (response day 0-9), Subsequent Responders (response day 10-28) and Non-responders (no response after 28 days) in demographic and cancer-related characteristics and PROM-scores using linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 2,097 CRCs, 1,188 responded (57%). Of these, 142 (7%) were excluded leaving 1,955 eligible CRCs. 628 (32%) were categorized as initial responders, 418 (21%) as subsequent responders, and 909 (47%) as non-responders. Differences in demographic and cancer-related characteristics between the three groups were minor and PROM-scores only marginally differed between initial and subsequent responders. CONCLUSION: In this study of long-term colorectal cancer survivors, we showed that initial responders, subsequent responders, and non-responders exhibit comparable demographic and cancer-related characteristics. Among respondents, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were also similar, indicating generalizability. Assuming Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of subsequent responders represent answers by the non-responders (would they be available), it may be reasonable to judge the missingness mechanism as Missing Completely At Random.

Evaluation of the validity and screening performance of a revised single-item fear of cancer recurrence screening measure (FCR-1r).

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors, but irregularly identified in practice. Single-item FCR measures suitable for integration into broader psychosocial screening are needed. This study evaluated the validity of a revised version of the original FCR-1 (FCR-1r) and screening performance alongside the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - Revised (ESAS-r) anxiety item. METHODS: The FCR-1r was adapted from the FCR-1 and modelled on the ESAS-r. Associations between FCR-1r and FCR Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF) scores determined concurrent validity. Relationships of FCR-1r scores with variables related (e.g., anxiety, intrusive thoughts) and unrelated (e.g., employment/marital status) to FCR determined convergent and divergent validity respectively. A Receiver-Operating Characteristic analysis examined screening performance and cut-offs for the FCR-1r and ESAS-r anxiety item. RESULTS: 107 participants were recruited in two studies (Study 1, July-October 2021, n = 54; Study 2: November 2021-May 2022, n = 53). The FCR-1r demonstrated concurrent validity against the FCRI-SF (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) and convergent validity versus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (r = 0.63, p < 0.0001) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion subscale (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001). It did not correlate with unrelated variables (e.g., employment/marital status), indicating divergent validity. An FCR-1r cut-off ≥5/10 had 95% sensitivity and 77% specificity for detecting clinical FCR (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, p < 0.0001); ESAS-r anxiety cut-off ≥4 had 91% sensitivity and 82% specificity (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FCR-1r is a valid and accurate tool for FCR screening. Further evaluation of the screening performance of the FCR-1r versus the ESAS-r anxiety item in routine care is needed.

Validity and screening capacity of the FCR-1r for fear of cancer recurrence in long-term colorectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Existing fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) screening measures is being shortened to facilitate clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and screening capacity of a single-item FCR screening measure (FCR-1r) in long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors with no recurrence and assess whether it performs as well in older as in younger survivors. METHODS: All Danish CRC survivors above 18, diagnosed and treated with curative intent between 2014 and 2018, were located through a national patient registry. A questionnaire including the FCR-1r, which measures FCR on a 0-10 visual analog scale, alongside the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory Short Form (FCRI-SF) as a reference standard was distributed between November 2021 and May 2023. Screening capacity and cut-offs were evaluated with a receiver-operating characteristic analysis (ROC) in older (≥ 65 years) compared to younger (< 65 years) CRC survivors. Hypotheses regarding associations with other psychological variables were tested as indicators of convergent and divergent validity. RESULTS: Of the CRC survivors, 2,128/4,483 (47.5%) responded; 1,654 (36.9%) questionnaires were eligible for analyses (median age 76 (range 38-98), 47% female). Of the responders, 85.2% were aged ≥ 65. Ninety-two participants (5.6%) reported FCRI-SF scores ≥ 22 indicating clinically significant FCR. A FCR-1r cut-off ≥ 5/10 had 93.5% sensitivity and 80.4% specificity for detecting clinically significant FCR (AUC = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.94) in the overall sample. The discrimination ability was significantly better in older (AUC = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.95) compared to younger (0.87, 95% (0.82-0.92), p = 0.04) CRC survivors. The FCR-1r demonstrated concurrent validity against the FCRI-SF (r = 0.71, p < 0.0001) and convergent validity against the short-versions of the Symptom Checklist-90-R subscales for anxiety (r = 0.38, p < 0.0001), depression (r = 0.27, p < 0.0001), and emotional distress (r = 0.37, p < 0.0001). The FCR-1r correlated weakly with employment status (r = - 0.09, p < 0.0001) and not with marital status (r = 0.01, p = 0.66) indicating divergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: The FCR-1r is a valid tool for FCR screening in CRC survivors with excellent ability to discriminate between clinical and non-clinical FCR, particularly in older CRC survivors.

What is the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence in cancer survivors and patients? A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Care for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is considered the most common unmet need among cancer survivors. Yet the prevalence of FCR and predisposing factors remain inconclusive. To support targeted care, we provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and severity of FCR among cancer survivors and patients, as measured using the short form of the validated Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI-SF). We also report on associations between FCR and clinical and demographic characteristics. METHODS: This is a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the prevalence of FCR. In the review, we included all studies that used the FCRI-SF with adult (≥18 years) cancer survivors and patients. Date of search: 7 February 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: IPD were requested from 87 unique studies and provided for 46 studies comprising 11,226 participants from 13 countries. 9311 respondents were included for the main analyses. On the FCRI-SF (range 0-36), 58.8% of respondents scored ≥13, 45.1% scored ≥16 and 19.2% scored ≥22. FCR decreased with age and women reported more FCR than men. FCR was found across cancer types and continents and for all time periods since cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: FCR affects a considerable number of cancer survivors and patients. It is therefore important that healthcare providers discuss this issue with their patients and provide treatment when needed. Further research is needed to investigate how best to prevent and treat FCR and to identify other factors associated with FCR. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42020142185).

The unmet supportive care needs of Chinese patients and caregivers affected by cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients and caregivers have myriad unmet needs which can have detrimental consequences on their psychosocial wellbeing. This systematic review aims to identify the unmet supportive care needs of immigrant and native Chinese cancer patients and caregivers. METHODS: We systematically searched various electronic databases (e.g. Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, etc.) from the earliest date available until January 2018. Additional studies were identified through reference lists and citation tracking. Eligibility criteria included: (a) qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed methods studies published in English; (b) immigrant and native Chinese cancer patients and/or caregivers (age ≥18 years); (c) unmet needs and/or their correlates. Studies were assessed for their risk of bias, and a narrative synthesis of findings was performed. RESULTS: Forty-seven papers from 45 studies met eligibility criteria. The most prevalent area of unmet needs was health system and information. Patients most commonly desired one member of the hospital to talk to about all aspects of their care. Caregivers preferred information about the patient's prognosis and likely outcome. Anxiety was most commonly associated with higher levels of health system and information needs. CONCLUSION: Chinese patients and caregivers experience a range of unmet health system and information needs, which differ depending on their stage along the cancer trajectory.

Moving beyond translation: Development of WeCope, a self-management resource for Chinese-Australian immigrants affected by cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, there are no self-management resources in Australia that support both Chinese immigrant patients affected by cancer and their caregivers. This paper reports on the development and acceptability assessment of a self-management intervention (WeCope) in terms of its scope, social and cultural relevance and sensitivity. METHODS: Using a community participatory approach in this qualitative study, patients, caregivers and community members took part in semi-structured focus groups or interviews in Cantonese, Mandarin or English to develop and provide feedback on the acceptability of 'WeCope'. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts using inductive (codes) and deductive (themes and categories) methods. RESULTS: Patients (n = 17), caregivers (n = 10) and community members (n = 2) participated. Four themes were developed, guided by the framework of cultural sensitivity in interventions: (1) content preference and satisfaction; (2) perceived usefulness and usability; (3) cultural relevance and acceptability; and (4) layout and presentation. Participants most commonly wanted more information about treatment-related issues (n = 14) and available support services (n = 14). CONCLUSION: Chinese patients and caregivers expressed overall satisfaction with the WeCope resource and provided suggestions for improvement, including provision of more treatment-related information and contact details for available support while reducing the overall resource length.

A systematic review of fear of cancer recurrence related healthcare use and intervention cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a common and burdensome psychological condition affecting cancer survivors. This systematic review aims to synthesise current evidence regarding: (1) FCR-related healthcare usage and costs and (2) the cost-effectiveness of FCR treatments. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane and other electronic databases using MeSH headings and keywords for cancer, FCR and costs from their inception to September 2019. Identified studies were screened for eligibility. Original, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting quantitative data from samples of adults treated for cancer written in English were included. Quality was appraised using the Drummond checklist for economic evaluations or the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Data from 11 studies were extracted and synthesised. Seven studies addressed the costs of FCR and suggested an increase in the use of primary and secondary healthcare. Four studies addressed the cost-effectiveness of different FCR treatments and suggest that some treatments may cost-effectively reduce FCR and improve quality of life. Reviewed treatments had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between AU$3,233 and AU$152,050 per quality-adjusted life year gained when adjusted to 2019 Australian dollars. All studies were of sufficient quality to be synthesised in this review. CONCLUSIONS: FCR appears to be associated with greater use of certain healthcare resources, and FCR may be treated cost-effectively. Thus, appropriate FCR treatments may not only reduce the individual burden, but also the strain on the healthcare system. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm this and ensure the future implementation of efficient and sustainable FCR treatments.

Development and usability evaluation of an online self-management intervention for fear of cancer recurrence (iConquerFear).

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate the usability of iConquerFear, an online self-management adaptation of an efficacious face-to-face therapist-delivered treatment for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). METHODS: iConquerFear development was theory based and person based. Development was guided by Ritterband et al's behaviour change model for internet interventions. iConquerFear end users (cancer survivors) provided iterative feedback in accordance with Yardley et al's person-based approach to maximise engagement and usability. Online focus groups and cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate the usability of iConquerFear. Discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Five online FCR modules were developed. Twenty-three cancer survivors (47% of those eligible) participated; 11/23 (58%) were breast cancer survivors, and average age was 53 years (SD = 10.8). Thematic saturation was reached after six focus groups (n = 16) and seven individual think-aloud interviews. Thematic analysis produced five overarching themes: easy navigation essential; satisfaction and engagement with content; flexible access is key; normalising and empowering; and a useful first step. CONCLUSIONS: Online self-management interventions like iConquerFear have the potential to address the unmet supportive care needs reported by burgeoning numbers of cancer survivors. However, that potential may not be realised unless interventions are rigorously developed and user tested, as benefits are constrained by limited engagement. Themes from the usability testing of iConquerFear highlight the importance of developing flexible, tailored, interactive, and contextual online self-management interventions for people with cancer.

Identifying the key characteristics of clinical fear of cancer recurrence: An international Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Without an agreed-upon set of characteristics that differentiate clinical from nonclinical levels of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), it is difficult to ensure that FCR severity is appropriately measured, and that those in need of intervention are identified. The objective of this study was to establish expert consensus on the defining features of clinical FCR. METHOD: A three-round Delphi was used to reach consensus on the defining features of clinical FCR. Sixty-five experts in FCR (researchers, psychologists, physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals) were recruited to suggest and rate potential features of clinical FCR. Participants who indicated they could communicate diagnoses within their clinical role were also asked to consider the application of established DSM-5 and proposed ICD-11 diagnostic criteria (Health Anxiety, Illness Anxiety Disorder, Somatic Symptom Disorder) to clinical FCR. RESULTS: Participants' ratings suggested that the following four features are key characteristics of clinical FCR: (a) high levels of preoccupation; (b) high levels of worry; (c) that are persistent; and (d) hypervigilance to bodily symptoms. Of participants whose professional role allowed them to diagnose mental disorders, 84% indicated it would be helpful to diagnose clinical FCR, but the use of established diagnostic criteria related to health anxiety or somatic-related disorders to clinical FCR was not supported. This suggests that participants consider clinical FCR as a presentation that is specific to cancer survivors. CONCLUSION: Clinical FCR was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. Further research is needed to empirically validate the proposed defining features.

A psychological intervention (ConquerFear) for treating fear of cancer recurrence: Views of study therapists regarding sustainability.

OBJECTIVE: ConquerFear is a metacognitive intervention for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) with proven efficacy immmediately and 6 months post-treatment. This qualitative study documented barriers and facilitators to the sustainability of ConquerFear from the perspective of study therapists. METHODS: Fourteen therapists who had delivered ConquerFear in a randomised controlled trial completed a semi-structured phone interview, reaching theoretical saturation. Themes from thematic analysis were mapped to the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) implementation framework. RESULTS: Participants were 13 males and one female with, on average, 14 years psycho-oncology experience. Nine over-arching themes were identified, falling into three domains, which when present, were facilitators, and if absent, were barriers: evidence (intervention credibility, experienced efficacy, perceived need for intervention); context (positive attitude to and capacity for survivorship/FCR care, favourable therapist orientation and flexibility, strong referral pathways); and facilitation of implementation (intervention/service fit, intervention/patient fit, and training, support, and provided resources). CONCLUSIONS: ConquerFear is a sustainable intervention in routine clinical practise. Facilitators included a sound evidence base; a receptive context; good fit between the intervention, therapist orientation, and patient need; and flexibility of delivery. Where absent, these factors served as barriers. These results have implications for enhancing uptake of psycho-oncology interventions in routine care.

"It sort of hit me like a baseball bat between the eyes": a qualitative study of the psychosocial experiences of mesothelioma patients and carers.

PURPOSE: Mesothelioma is an insidious disease with a generally poor prognosis even after invasive treatment. This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of patients suffering from mesothelioma and their carers and their perceptions of how their needs may be addressed. METHODS: Eligible patients and carers were identified by a lung cancer care coordinator at each participating site, and invited to participate in one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 5 patients, n = 3 carers), or in one of two focus groups (n = 3 patients, n = 3 carers). Discussions focusing on participants' experiences relating to physical, psychological, social, information and carer domains were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: The five major themes identified were (1) time of diagnosis is a particularly difficult period; (2) the timeliness, accuracy and balance of mesothelioma information is problematic; (3) coping strategies ranged from antagonism to acceptance; (4) the emotional and physical load of caring for the patient is significant and (5) carers need one-on-one support. CONCLUSION: Mesothelioma patients and their carers face significant challenges, particularly around the time of diagnosis and in the physical, psychological and social/practical domains. There is a clear need for additional information, delivered in a timely and psychologically sensitive manner, as well as for practical and emotional support. Quantitative research may shed greater light on the prevalence and severity of challenges and needs reported by participants, and determine the usefulness of resources such as case workers and dyadic coping interventions in addressing these.

A systematic review of quantitative observational studies investigating psychological distress in testicular cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Testicular cancer (TC) affects young men and may cause psychological distress despite a good prognosis. This systematic review evaluated the prevalence, severity, and correlates of anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), and distress in TC survivors. METHODS: A systematic search of literature published 1977 to 2017 was conducted to find quantitative studies including TC survivor-reported outcomes relevant to review objectives. The quality of included articles was assessed, and a narrative synthesis conducted. RESULTS: Of 6717 articles identified, 66 (39 good, 20 fair, and 7 poor quality) reporting results from 36 studies were included. Testicular cancer survivors' mean anxiety levels were higher than in the general population, while mean depression and distress were no different. Clinically significant anxiety (≈1 in 5) and to a lesser extent distress (≈1 in 7), but not depression, were more prevalent in TC survivors than the general population. Approximately 1 in 3 TC survivors experienced elevated FCR. Poorer psychological outcomes were more common among TC survivors who were single, unemployed/low socio-economic status, suffering from co-morbidities, experiencing worse symptoms/side effects, and using passive coping strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Many TC survivors do not experience significant psychological morbidity, but anxiety and FCR are prevalent. Inadequate coping resources (eg, low socio-economic status and social support) and strategies (eg, avoidance) and greater symptoms/side effects were associated with poorer outcomes. Theoretically driven prospective studies would aid understanding of how outcomes change over time and how to screen for risk. Age and gender appropriate interventions that prevent and manage issues specific to TC survivors are also needed.

Exploring the screening capacity of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form for clinical levels of fear of cancer recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a common concern among cancer survivors. Identifying survivors with clinically significant FCR requires validated screening measures and clinical cut-offs. We evaluated the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF) clinical cut-off in 2 samples. METHODS: Level of FCR in study 1 participants (from an Australian randomized controlled trial: ConquerFear) was compared with FCRI-SF scores. Based on a biopsychosocial interview, clinicians rated participants as having nonclinical, subclinical, or clinical FCR. Study 2 participants (from a Canadian FCRI-English validation study) were classified as having clinical or nonclinical FCR by using the semistructured clinical interview for FCR (SIFCR). Receiver operating characteristic analyses evaluated the screening ability of the FCRI-SF against clinician ratings (study 1) and the SIFCR (study 2). RESULTS: In study 1, 167 cancer survivors (mean age: 53 years, SD = 10.1) participated. Clinicians rated 43% as having clinical FCR. In study 2, 40 cancer survivors (mean age: 68 years, SD = 7.0) participated; 25% met criteria for clinical FCR according to the SIFCR. For both studies 1 and 2, receiver operating characteristic analyses suggested a cut-off ≥22 on the FCRI-SF identified cancer survivors with clinical levels of FCR with adequate sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing clinical cut-offs on FCR screening measures is crucial to tailoring individual care and conducting rigorous research. Our results suggest using a higher cut-off on the FCRI-SF than previously reported to identify clinically significant FCR. Continued evaluation and validation of the FCRI-SF cut-off is required across diverse cancer populations.

Medical, demographic and psychological correlates of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) morbidity in breast, colorectal and melanoma cancer survivors with probable clinically significant FCR seeking psychological treatment through the ConquerFear study.

PURPOSE: Despite the prevalence of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), understanding of factors underlying clinically significant FCR is limited. This study examined factors associated with greater FCR morbidity, according to a cognitive processing model, in cancer survivors who screened positively for clinically significant FCR seeking psychological treatment through the ConquerFear trial. METHODS: Participants had completed treatment for breast, colorectal or melanoma cancer 2 months to 5 years previously and scored ≥ 13/36 on the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF). Hierarchical regression analyses examined associations between demographic, medical and psychological variables, namely metacognitions (MCQ-30), post-traumatic stress symptoms (IES-R) and FCR (FCRI total score). RESULTS: Two hundred and ten (95%) of the 222 cancer survivors who consented to the ConquerFear trial completed the baseline questionnaire. Participants were predominantly (89%) breast cancer survivors. The final regression model accounted for 68% of the variance in FCR (demographic and medical variables 13%, metacognitions 26%, post-traumatic stress symptoms 28%). Negative metacognitive beliefs about worry and intrusive post-traumatic stress symptoms were significant individual correlates of FCR, but negative beliefs about worry did not significantly moderate the impact of intrusions on FCR morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide partial support for the cognitive processing model of FCR. Psychological factors were found to play an important role in FCR morbidity after controlling for demographic/medical factors. More intrusive thoughts and negative beliefs about worry were strong independent predictors of FCR morbidity. Cancer survivors with clinically significant FCR may benefit from assessment for intrusive thoughts and metacognitions and delivery of trauma- and/or metacognitive-based interventions accordingly.

The sum of all fears: conceptual challenges with measuring fear of cancer recurrence.

Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is increasingly recognised as a major concern for people with cancer once active treatment is completed. Several instruments have been designed to assess FCR; however, no gold standard has emerged. Many instruments conceptualise FCR as a multidimensional construct. However, this potentially conflates FCR as an outcome with its antecedents and consequences. This is problematic when an aggregate of distinct dimensions is calculated, as is commonly recommended. For example, the total score on the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory is an aggregate of items from seven sub-scales: triggers, severity, psychological distress, coping strategies, functioning impairments, insight and reassurance. Similarly, the total score on the Fear of Progression Questionnaire is an aggregate of affective reaction, partnership/family, work and loss of autonomy. Arguably, the severity and affective reaction domains represent fear, and the other sub-scales represent related concepts, rather than "dimensions" of FCR. The total score represents a combination of concepts whose meaning is unclear. The same total score could be produced by patients with very different experiences, and patients with the same level of fear could have very different total scores. Therefore, we argue that although the level of FCR may be determined by a complex network of antecedents and modifiers and have variable consequences, FCR itself may be a simple concept, which can be assessed using a smaller number of items. Conceptual clarity in its research infancy should prevent FCR becoming a construct that is vaguely operationalised and interpreted.

A comparison of data quality and practicality of online versus postal questionnaires in a sample of testicular cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare data quality from online and postal questionnaires and to evaluate the practicality of these different questionnaire modes in a cancer sample. METHODS: Participants in a study investigating the psychosocial sequelae of testicular cancer could choose to complete a postal or online version of the study questionnaire. Data quality was evaluated by assessing sources of nonobservational errors such as participant nonresponse, item nonresponse and sampling bias. Time taken and number of reminders required for questionnaire return were used as indicators of practicality. RESULTS: Participant nonresponse was significantly higher among participants who chose the postal questionnaire. The proportion of questionnaires with missing items and the mean number of missing items did not differ significantly by mode. A significantly larger proportion of tertiary-educated participants and managers/professionals completed the online questionnaire. There were no significant differences in age, relationship status, employment status, country of birth or language spoken by completion mode. Compared with postal questionnaires, online questionnaires were returned significantly more quickly and required significantly fewer reminders. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that online questionnaire completion can be offered in a cancer sample without compromising data quality. In fact, data quality from online questionnaires may be superior due to lower rates of participant nonresponse. Investigators should be aware of potential sampling bias created by more highly educated participants and managers/professionals choosing to complete online questionnaires. Besides this issue, online questionnaires offer an efficient method for collecting high-quality data, with faster return and fewer reminders.