Meaning and Purpose (MaP) therapy in advanced cancer patients: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the efficacy of Meaning and Purpose (MaP) Therapy in promoting posttraumatic growth and meaningful life attitudes (choices and goal seeking) in people living with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients with a prognosis ≥ 1 year were stratified across two sites and randomised to receive MaP therapy and regular oncology/palliative care (Intervention) or usual care (Control). They completed measures at baseline (t0), post-intervention (12 weeks, t1) and 12 weeks later (t2). Our primary outcome was posttraumatic growth (PTGI); secondary outcome measures included life attitudes (LAPR), spiritual wellbeing (FACIT-Sp), anxiety, demoralization and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001751268, 7 January 2019. RESULTS: We consented 107 from 404 eligible patients (26.5%) and randomised 55 to MaP Invention (35 completing t1, 25 t2) and 52 to Control (32 completing t1, 25 t2). Fidelity of the intervention was sustained. PTGI mean scores were significantly higher post-intervention on analysis by covariance (Cohen's d = 0.7 at t1 & d = 0.5 at t2). Secondary measures were significant, including LAPR (d = 0.4) and FACIT-Sp (meaning subscale d = 0.4; total d = 0.4). Participants completing six sessions achieved more noteworthy effect sizes. CONCLUSION: This brief, structured individual intervention shows promise for sustaining sense of coherence, meaning and choices in life despite living with advanced cancer.

The Demoralization Interview: Reliability and validity of a new brief diagnostic measure among medically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Demoralization is a state of low morale and poor coping that is being increasingly recognized in stressful circumstances, such as illness. Meta-analyses show prevalence of 30% in the medically and 50% in the mentally ill. A brief structured diagnostic interview is needed to assess for and diagnose demoralization. METHODS: The Demoralization Interview (DI) was designed from items of the Demoralization Scale-II (DS-II) and common items used in other clinical interviews. The resultant 26 items were administered to 264 patients with serious progressive medical illnesses, together with the DS-II, measures of depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Rasch analysis was used to co-calibrate the DI against the DS-II. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) were assessed. Concurrent validation was conducted against measures of anxiety, depression, and quality of life. RESULTS: A 14-item Demoralization Interview (DI) with a diagnostic threshold of 6 symptoms generated sensitivity of 78.0%, specificity of 90.9%, and AUROC of 0.84 against the DS-II. Unidimensionality was indicated, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81. For respondents with 6 or more symptoms on the DI, 98% recognized a current stressor and 66% described significant distress or functional impairment. Demoralized respondents carried significantly lower quality of life, higher physical disability, and higher depressive and anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The DI has good reliability and validity, with a threshold of 6 symptoms supporting a diagnosis of demoralization. It could be used as a stand-alone diagnosis, or as a specifier for adjustment disorder or depression.