Comparing the efficacy of integrative body-mind-spirit intervention with cognitive behavioral therapy in patient-caregiver parallel groups for lung cancer patients using a randomized controlled trial.

Purposes/objectives: This paper reports the comparative efficacies of integrative body-mind-spirit intervention (I-BMS) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in patient-caregiver parallel groups for Chinese patients with lung cancer.Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT).Methods: One hundred and fifty-seven patient-caregiver dyads with no marked functional impairment were randomized into one of the two interventions with eight weekly patient-caregiver parallel groups. Assessments were conducted at baseline, within one, eight- and sixteen-weeks post-intervention. Effects of treatment group across time were analyzed by multilevel modeling.Findings: CBT led to greater reduction in emotional vulnerability than I-BMS. I-BMS resulted in greater increase in overall QoL and spiritual self-care, and more reduction in depression than CBT. Patients in both interventions experienced improvement in physical, emotional and spiritual, except social, domains of QoL.Conclusion: I-BMS was more efficacious for diverse domains of QoL, and CBT was more effective for emotional well-being, despite the relatively small between-group effect sizes.Implications for psychosocial providers/policy: (1) With the expanding repertoire of psychosocial interventions for families facing lung cancer, it has become imperative to investigate the comparative efficacies of empirically supported and culturally adapted interventions. (2) Our findings show that I-BMS was more effective for diverse domains of QoL, while CBT was more efficacious with emotional well-being, although both interventions led to significant improvements in physical, emotional and spiritual domains of patient QoL. (3) Patient-caregiver parallel groups have been shown to be effective for enhancing QoL of Chinese lung cancer patients. (4) Care professionals are encouraged to dispense interventions based on the idiosyncratic needs and preferences of the patients to maximize the treatment effects.

Comparing the mental health literacy of Chinese people in Australia, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: Implications for mental health promotion.

Using data of 200, 522, 572, and 287 Chinese from Australia, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan respectively, this study aimed at comparing the mental health literacy of Chinese people from different communities, and between Chinese communities and the Australian general public. The participants were asked questions that assessed their recognition of depression and schizophrenia. Compared with the Australians, much lower percentages of Chinese in the four Chinese communities could correctly identify depression and early schizophrenia. Commonalities in the preference for 'psychiatrist', 'psychologist', 'Chinese medical doctor', and 'Chinese traditional healer', a lack of knowledge of medications, and a higher likelihood of endorsement of traditional Chinese medicines were found among the four Chinese communities. Differences in the preference for 'general practitioner' and 'social worker', and a higher percentage of endorsement of herbal medicines were observed among the different Chinese communities. Cultural factors such as Chinese perceptions of mental illness, and socio-contextual factors such as differences in mental health care system in the four communities were offered to explain these commonalities and differences. Mental health promotion programmes for Chinese people may need to consider the above-mentioned cultural and socio-contextual factors so that specific promotion programmes can be developed.