Adjustment disorder in cancer patients after treatment: prevalence and acceptance of psychological treatment.

PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of adjustment disorder (AD) among cancer patients and the acceptance of psychological treatment, in relation to sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. METHODS: Breast, prostate, and head and neck cancer patients of all stages and treatment modalities (N = 200) participated in this observational study. Patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Checklist Individual Strength, Distress Thermometer and problem list. Patients with increased risk on AD based on these questionnaires were scheduled for a diagnostic interview. Patients diagnosed with AD were invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial on the cost-effectiveness of psychological treatment. Participation in this trial was used as a proxy of acceptance of psychological treatment. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate associated factors. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of AD was estimated at 13.1%. Sensitivity analyses showed prevalence rates of AD of 11.5%, 15.0%, and 23.5%. Acceptance of psychological treatment was estimated at 65%. AD was associated both with being employed (OR = 3.3, CI = 1.3-8.4) and having a shorter time since diagnosis (OR = 0.3, CI = 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSION: Taking sensitivity analysis into account, the prevalence of AD among cancer patients is estimated at 13 to 15%, and is related to being employed and having a shorter time since diagnosis. The majority of cancer patients with AD accept psychological treatment.

Reasons for not reaching or using web-based self-management applications, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among cancer survivors, in the context of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The web-based self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survivors to monitor health-related quality of life and symptoms (Measure) and to provide tailored information (Learn) and supportive care options (Act). In a previously reported randomised controlled trial (RCT), 68% of 655 recruited survivors were eligible, and of those 45% participated in the RCT. Among participants of the RCT that were randomised to the intervention group, 52% used Oncokompas as intended. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for not participating in the RCT, and reasons for not using Oncokompas among non-users, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among users. METHODS: Reasons for not participating were assessed with a study-specific questionnaire among 243 survivors who declined participation. Usage was investigated among 320 participants randomised to the intervention group of the RCT via system data and a study-specific questionnaire that was assessed during the 1 week follow-up (T1) assessment. RESULTS: Main reasons for not participating were not interested in participation in scientific research (40%) and not interested in scientific research and Oncokompas (28%). Main reasons for not being interested in Oncokompas were wanting to leave the period of being ill behind (29%), no symptom burden (23%), or lacking internet skills (18%). Out of the 320 participants in the intervention group 167 (52%) used Oncokompas as intended. Among 72 non-users, main reasons for not using Oncokompas were no symptom burden (32%) or lack of time (26%). Among 248 survivors that activated their account, satisfaction and user-friendliness were rated with a 7 (scale 0-10). Within 3 (IQR 1-4) sessions, users selected 32 (IQR 6-37) topics. Main reasons for not using healthcare options in Act were that the information in Learn was already sufficient (44%) or no supportive care needs (32%). DISCUSSION: Main reasons for not reaching or using Oncokompas were no symptom burden, no supportive care needs, or lack of time. Users selected many cancer-generic and tumour-specific topics to address, indicating added value of the wide range of available topics.

Cost-utility of an eHealth application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors in self-management: results of a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' was developed to support cancer survivors in monitoring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and obtaining personalized feedback and options for supportive care. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of Oncokompas compared with care as usual (CAU) among cancer survivors. METHODS: Survivors were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Direct (non-)medical, indirect non-medical costs, and HRQOL were measured at 3- and 6-month follow-up, using iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Costs and the EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared between both groups. RESULTS: In total, 625 survivors were randomized into intervention (n = 320) or control group (n = 305). Base case analysis showed that incremental costs from a societal perspective were - €163 (95% CI, - 665 to 326), and incremental QALYs were 0.0017 (95% CI, - 0.0121 to 0.0155) in the intervention group compared with those in the control group. The probability that, compared with CAU, Oncokompas is more effective was 60%, less costly 73%, and both more effective and less costly 47%. Sensitivity analyses showed that incremental costs vary between - €40 and €69, and incremental QALYs vary between - 0.0023 and - 0.0057. CONCLUSION: Oncokompas is likely to be equally effective on utilities, and not more expensive than CAU, and will therefore contribute to sustainable cancer survivorship care in a (cost-)effective manner. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Oncokompas seems to improve HRQOL and reduces the burden of several tumour-specific symptoms, while costs from a societal perspective are similar to CAU.

The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' that supports cancer survivors to improve health-related quality of life and reduce symptoms: which groups benefit most?

BACKGROUND: Oncokompas is a web-based self-management application that supports cancer survivors to monitor their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and to obtain personalised feedback and tailored options for supportive care. In a large randomised controlled trial among survivors of head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer and (non-)Hodgkin lymphoma, Oncokompas proved to improve HRQOL, and to reduce several tumour-specific symptoms. Effect sizes were however small, and no effect was observed on the primary outcome patient activation. Therefore, this study aims to explore which subgroups of cancer survivors may especially benefit from Oncokompas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer survivors (n = 625) were randomly assigned to the intervention group (access to Oncokompas, n = 320) or control group (6 months waiting list, n = 305). Outcome measures were HRQOL, tumour-specific symptoms, and patient activation. Potential moderators included socio-demographic (sex, age, marital status, education, employment), clinical (tumour type, stage, time since diagnosis, treatment modality, comorbidities), and personal factors (self-efficacy, personal control, health literacy, Internet use), and patient activation, mental adjustment to cancer, HRQOL, symptoms, and need for supportive care, measured at baseline. Linear mixed models were performed to investigate potential moderators. RESULTS: The intervention effect on HRQOL was the largest among cancer survivors with low to moderate self-efficacy, and among those with high personal control and those with high health literacy scores. Cancer survivors with higher baseline symptom scores benefitted more on head and neck (pain in the mouth, social eating, swallowing, coughing, trismus), and colorectal cancer (weight) specific symptoms. DISCUSSION: Oncokompas seems most effective in reducing symptoms in head and neck cancer and colorectal cancer survivors who report a higher burden of tumour-specific symptoms. Oncokompas seems most effective in improving HRQOL in cancer survivors with lower self-efficacy, and in cancer survivors with higher personal control, and higher health literacy.

Positive mental health among cancer survivors: overlap in psychological well-being, personal meaning, and posttraumatic growth.

PURPOSE: Positive mental health involves theoretical constructs like psychological well-being, personal meaning, and posttraumatic growth. This study aims to provide empirical insight into possible overlap between these constructs in cancer survivors. METHODS: Within the context of a randomized controlled trial, 170 cancer survivors completed the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being (SPWB), Personal Meaning Profile (PMP), and Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the subscales of these PROMs, as well as structural equation modeling (SEM), was used to explore overlap in these three constructs. RESULTS: The EFA resulted in a three-factor solution with an insufficient model fit. SEM led to a model with a high estimated correlation (0.87) between SPWB and PMP and lower estimated correlations with PTGI (respectively 0.38 and 0.47). Furthermore, the estimated correlation between the subscales relation with God (PMP) and spiritual change (PTGI) was high (0.92). This model had adequate fit indices (χ2(93) = 144, p = .001, RMSEA = 0.059, CFI = 0.965, TLI = 0.955, SRMR = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: The constructs psychological well-being and personal meaning overlap to a large extent in cancer survivors. Posttraumatic growth can be seen as a separate construct, as well as religiosity. These findings facilitate researchers to select the appropriate PROM(s) when testing the effect of a psychosocial intervention on positive mental health in cancer survivors. RELEVANCE: An increasing number of psychosocial intervention trials for cancer survivors use positive mental health outcomes. These constructs are often multifaceted and overlapping. Knowledge of this overlap is important in designing trials, in order to avoid the pitfalls of multiple testing and finding artificially strengthened associations. NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTER: NTR3571.

Efficacy of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for cancer survivors (MCGP-CS) to improve personal meaning, compared with supportive group psychotherapy (SGP) and care as usual (CAU). METHOD: A total of 170 cancer survivors were randomly assigned to one of the three study arms: MCGP-CS (n = 57); SGP (n = 56); CAU (n = 57). The primary outcome measure was the Personal Meaning Profile (PMP; total score). Secondary outcome measures were subscales of the PMP, psychological well-being (Scales of Psychological Well-being; SPWB), post-traumatic growth (Posttraumatic Growth Inventory), Mental Adjustment to Cancer (MAC), optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised), hopelessness (Beck's Hopelessness Scale), psychological distress (anxiety and depression, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS) and quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcome measures were assessed before randomization, post-intervention, and after 3 and 6 months of follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Linear mixed model analyses (intention-to-treat) showed significant differences between MCGP-CS, SGP and CAU on the total PMP score, and on (sub)scales of the PMP, SPWB, MAC and HADS. Post-hoc analyses showed significantly stronger treatment effects of MCGP-CS compared with CAU on personal meaning (d = 0.81), goal-orientedness (d = 1.07), positive relations (d = 0.59), purpose in life (d = 0.69); fighting spirit (d = 0.61) (post-intervention) and helpless/hopeless (d = -0.87) (3 months FU); and distress (d = -0.6) and depression (d = -0.38) (6 months FU). Significantly stronger effects of MCGP-CS compared with SGP were found on personal growth (d = 0.57) (3 months FU) and environmental mastery (d = 0.66) (6 months FU). CONCLUSIONS: MCGP-CS is an effective intervention for cancer survivors to improve personal meaning, psychological well-being and mental adjustment to cancer in the short term, and to reduce psychological distress in the long run.

Posttraumatic growth among head and neck cancer survivors with psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: Information on posttraumatic growth (PTG) among head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors with a high level of distress is limited. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the occurrence of PTG among distressed HNC survivors and its association with anxiety, depressive, nicotine, and alcohol use disorders and health-related quality of life. METHODS: Seventy-four HNC survivors with psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety > 7 and/or HADS depression > 7) completed the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory, which comprises five subscales: relating to others, new possibilities, personal strength, spiritual change, and appreciation of life, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire. Anxiety, depressive, nicotine, and alcohol use disorders were measured using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS: Moderate to high Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) scores occurred in 10% of the HNC survivors with distress. The mean total PTGI score was 30.8 (SD = 19.7), with the highest mean score on the subscale relating to others. A multivariate regression model consisting of tumor stage, anxiety disorder, alcohol use disorder, and social functioning predicted total PTGI score best (F(4, 64) = 7.565, p < .000, R2 = .321). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PTG in this population of distressed HNC survivors was low. PTG occurred most in the domain of relating to others. Among distressed HNC survivors, higher PTG was associated with lower tumor stage, absence of an anxiety disorder, absence of an alcohol use disorder, and better social functioning. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.