Baseline characteristics and recruitment for SWOG S1820: altering intake, managing bowel symptoms in survivors of rectal cancer (AIMS-RC).

PURPOSE: Many survivors of rectal cancer experience persistent bowel dysfunction. There are few evidence-based symptom management interventions to improve bowel control. The purpose of this study is to describe recruitment and pre-randomization baseline sociodemographic, health status, and clinical characteristics for SWOG S1820, a trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms in Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC) intervention. METHODS: SWOG S1820 aimed to determine the preliminary efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of AIMS-RC, a symptom management intervention for bowel health, comparing intervention to attention control. Survivors with a history of cancers of the rectosigmoid colon or rectum, within 6-24 months of primary treatment completion, with a post-surgical permanent ostomy or anastomosis, and over 18 years of age were enrolled. Outcomes included total bowel function, low anterior resection syndrome, quality of life, motivation for managing bowel health, self-efficacy for managing symptoms, positive and negative affect, and study feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: The trial completed accrual over a 29-month period and enrolled 117 participants from 34 institutions across 17 states and one US Pacific territory. At baseline, most enrolled participants reported self-imposed diet adjustments after surgery, persistent dietary intolerances, and bowel discomfort post-treatment, with high levels of constipation and diarrhea (grades 1-4). CONCLUSIONS: SWOG S1820 was able to recruit, in a timely manner, a study cohort that is demographically representative of US survivors of rectal cancer. Baseline characteristics illustrate the connection between diet/eating and bowel symptoms post-treatment, with many participants reporting diet adjustments and persistent inability to be comfortable with dietary intake. GOV REGISTRATION DATE: 12/19/2019. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT#04205955.

SWOG S1820: A pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Bowel Symptoms Intervention in Survivors of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of rectal cancer experience persistent bowel dysfunction after treatments. Dietary interventions may be an effective approach for symptom management and posttreatment diet quality. SWOG S1820 was a pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms in Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC) intervention for bowel dysfunction in survivors of rectal cancer. METHODS: Ninety-three posttreatment survivors were randomized to the AIMS-RC group (N = 47) or the Healthy Living Education attention control group (N = 46) after informed consent and completion of a prerandomization run-in. Outcome measures were completed at baseline and at 18 and 26 weeks postrandomization. The primary end point was total bowel function score, and exploratory end points included low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score, quality of life, dietary quality, motivation, self-efficacy, and positive/negative affect. RESULTS: Most participants were White and college educated, with a mean age of 55.2 years and median time since surgery of 13.1 months. There were no statistically significant differences in total bowel function score by group, with the AIMS-RC group demonstrating statistically significant improvements in the exploratory end points of LARS (p = .01) and the frequency subscale of the bowel function index (p = .03). The AIMS-RC group reported significantly higher acceptability of the study. CONCLUSIONS: SWOG S1820 did not provide evidence of benefit from the AIMS-RC intervention relative to the attention control. Select secondary end points did demonstrate improvements. The study was highly feasible and acceptable for participants in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Findings provide strong support for further refinement and effectiveness testing of the AIMS-RC intervention.

Methodology for Analyzing Qualitative Data in Multiple Languages.

BACKGROUND: Translation strategies are commonly used for qualitative interview data to bridge language barriers. Inconsistent translation of interviews can lead to conceptual inequivalence, where meanings of participants' experiences are distorted, threatening scientific rigor. OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to describe a systematic method developed to analyze multilingual, qualitative interview data while maintaining the original language of the transcripts. METHODS: A literature review of translation strategies, cross-language, and multilingual qualitative research was conducted. Combined with criteria for qualitative content analysis and trustworthiness, the methodology was developed and used for a qualitative descriptive study. RESULTS: The study had interview data in both English and Spanish. The research team consisted of both native Spanish and English speakers, who were grouped based on language. Verbatim transcription of data occurred in the original languages. All codes were kept in English, allowing the research team to view the data set as a whole. Two researchers within each group coded each transcript independently before reaching a consensus. The entire research team discussed all transcripts, and finally, major themes were determined. Participants' quotes remained in the original language for publication, with an English translation included when needed. DISCUSSION: Analyzing transcripts in the original language brought forth cultural themes that otherwise may have been overlooked. This methodology promotes conceptual equivalence and trustworthiness that is paramount in cultural, linguistic, and social determinants of health research to advance health equity.