Study protocol of ConquerFear-HK: a randomised controlled trial of a metacognition-based, manualised intervention for fear of cancer recurrence among Chinese cancer survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a prevalent and frequently debilitating response to a cancer diagnosis, affecting a substantial proportion of cancer survivors. Approximately 30% of local Hong Kong Chinese cancer survivors in a recent survey reportedly experienced persistent high FCR over the first-year post-surgery. This was associated with lower levels of psychological well-being and quality of life. A manualised intervention (ConquerFear) developed primarily based on the Self-Regulatory Executive Function Model and the Rational Frame Theory, has been found to reduce FCR effectively among Caucasian cancer survivors. The intervention now has been adapted to a Chinese context; ConquerFear-HK. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate its efficacy vs a standard-survivorship-care control (BasicCancerCare) in FCR improvement in a randomised control trial (RCT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this RCT, using the sealed envelope method, 174 eligible Chinese cancer survivors will be randomised to either the ConquerFear-HK or BasicCancerCare intervention. Both interventions include six sessions over 10 weeks, which will be delivered via face to face or online by trained therapists. The ConquerFear-HK intervention incorporates value classification, metacognitive therapy, attentional training, detached mindfulness and psychoeducation; BasicCancerCare includes relaxation training, dietary and physical activity consultations. Participants will be assessed at prior randomisation (baseline; T0), immediately postintervention (T1), 3 months (T2) and 6 months postintervention (T3) on the measures of FCR (Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory) as a primary outcome; metacognition (30-item Metacognitions Quesionnaire) and cognitive attentional syndrome (Cognitive-attentional Syndrome Questionnaire) as process outcomes; psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), cancer-related distress (Chinese Impact of Events Scale), quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire) and treatment satisfaction are secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from HKU/HA HKW Institutional Review Board (ref: UW19-183). The patients/participants provide their written informed consent to participate in this study. The study results will be disseminated through international peer-review publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04568226.

Psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey short-form (SCNS-SF34-C) among Hong Kong and Taiwanese Chinese colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of unmet supportive care needs is essential for optimal cancer patient care. This study used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the known factor structures of the short form of Supportive Care Need Survey (SCNS-34) in Hong Kong and Taiwan Chinese patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: 360 Hong Kong and 263 Taiwanese Chinese CRC patients completed the Chinese version of SCNS-SF34. Comparative measures (patient satisfaction, anxiety, depression, and symptom distress) tested convergent validity while known group differences were examined to test discriminant validity. RESULTS: The original 5-factor and recent 4-factor models of the SCNS demonstrated poor data fit using CFA in both Hong Kong and Taiwan samples. Subsequently a modified five-factor model with correlated residuals demonstrated acceptable fit in both samples. Correlations demonstrated convergent and divergent validity and known group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: While the five-factor model demonstrated a better fit for data from Chinese colorectal cancer patients, some of the items within its domain overlapped, suggesting item redundancy. The five-factor model showed good psychometric properties in these samples but also suggests conceptualization of unmet supportive care needs are currently inadequate.

Attributing variance in supportive care needs during cancer: culture-service, and individual differences, before clinical factors.

BACKGROUND: Studies using the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) report high levels of unmet supportive care needs (SCNs) in psychological and less-so physical & daily living domains, interpreted as reflecting disease/treatment-coping deficits. However, service and culture differences may account for unmet SCNs variability. We explored if service and culture differences better account for observed SCNs patterns. METHODS: Hong Kong (n = 180), Taiwanese (n = 263) and Japanese (n = 109) CRC patients' top 10 ranked SCNS-34 items were contrasted. Mean SCNS-34 domain scores were compared by sample and treatment status, then adjusted for sample composition, disease stage and treatment status using multivariate hierarchical regression. RESULTS: All samples were assessed at comparable time-points. SCNs were most prevalent among Japanese and least among Taiwanese patients. Japanese patients emphasized Psychological (domain mean = 40.73) and Health systems and information (HSI) (38.61) SCN domains, whereas Taiwanese and Hong Kong patients emphasized HSI (27.41; 32.92) and Patient care & support (PCS) (19.70; 18.38) SCN domains. Mean Psychological domain scores differed: Hong Kong = 9.72, Taiwan = 17.84 and Japan = 40.73 (p<0.03-0.001, Bonferroni). Other SCN domains differed only between Chinese and Japanese samples (all p<0.001). Treatment status differentiated Taiwanese more starkly than Hong Kong patients. After adjustment, sample origin accounted for most variance in SCN domain scores (p<0.001), followed by age (p = 0.01-0.001) and employment status (p = 0.01-0.001). Treatment status and Disease stage, though retained, accounted for least variance. Overall accounted variance remained low. CONCLUSIONS: Health service and/or cultural influences, age and occupation differences, and less so clinical factors, differentially account for significant variation in published studies of SCNs.