Dyspnea-Related Dimensions And Self-Efficacy: Associations With Well-Being in Advanced Lung Cancer.

CONTEXT: Dyspnea is a complex, multidimensional symptom comprising sensory-perceptual, affective, and functional domains that commonly persists in patients with lung cancer and impairs mental health and quality of life (QOL). However, data are lacking on how dyspnea's dimensions or self-efficacy to manage dyspnea are associated with patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the associations of dyspnea dimensions (dyspnea-related sensory-perceptual experience, affective distress, and functional impact) and dyspnea self-efficacy with depression, anxiety, and QOL in patients with advanced lung cancer reporting dyspnea. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of baseline clinical trial data testing a supportive care intervention for dyspnea. Patients with advanced lung cancer reporting at least moderate dyspnea (≥2 on the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale) self-reported dyspnea and patient outcome measures. Hierarchical regressions tested the associations of the dyspnea dimensions with depressive and anxiety symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung) while adjusting for variables known to affect these outcomes. RESULTS: The sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnea (effort) was associated with worse depressive symptoms (b = 0.21, P < 0.01) and QOL (b = -0.53, P = 0.01). Dyspnea self-efficacy was associated with improved depressive (b = -1.26, P < 0.01) and anxiety symptoms (b = -1.72, P < 0.01) and QOL (b = 3.66, P < 0.01). The affective and functional dimensions of dyspnea were not associated with the patient outcomes in the final models. CONCLUSIONS: Dyspnea-related sensory-perceptual experience and self-efficacy were associated with mental health and QOL outcomes in patients with lung cancer. Examining the individual contributions of dyspnea's multiple dimensions provides a nuanced understanding of its patient impact.

Oncology mental health providers' adaptation of an evidence-based intervention: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Adaptations are intentional modifications maximizing the fit of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) in new context. Little is known about EBI adaptation within psychosocial oncology. Guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced (FRAME), this mixed-methods study describes oncology mental health providers' planned adaptations to a psychosocial oncology EBI and examines the relationship between planned adaptations and longitudinal EBI usage. METHODS: Providers (N = 128) were social workers (47%) and psychologists (40%) practicing in community settings (44%) or academic medical centers (41%). They attended a 3-day training on a multicomponent psychosocial oncology EBI, the Biobehavioral Intervention (BBI). During training, providers prepared an "adaptation plan" describing necessary adaptations to BBI and rationales for change. Qualitative data from adaptation plans were analyzed using directed content analysis. Linear mixed models examined the relationship between adaptation characteristics (number, similarity to the manualized BBI) and EBI usage across 12 months post-training. RESULTS: Three sets of qualitative themes reflecting FRAME elements emerged: (1) content modifications (e.g., shortening/condensing, selecting elements, adding/removing elements); (2) contextual changes (e.g., alternative group formats); and (3) reasons for adaptations (e.g., organization/setting, provider, and recipient factors). Neither number of adaptations nor adaptation similarity were associated with BBI usage across 12 months post-training. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to characterize oncology mental health providers' planned adaptations to a psychosocial oncology EBI. Planned adaptations did not increase usage, but importantly they did not decrease usage. The adaptation process enabled providers to make thoughtful adaptation choices, with implementation successful irrespective of setting constraints.

COVID-19 or Cancer Stress? Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Of all cancer patients, those with lung cancer are among the highest risk for infection, pneumonia, hospitalization, and early death from COVID-19. As cancer stress is ubiquitous, this exploratory study examines patients' COVID-19 stress and cancer stress in relation to their depressive and anxiety symptoms. METHOD: Newly diagnosed advanced lung cancer patients (N = 76) completed measures of cancer stress, COVID-19 illness perceptions and stress, and depressive and anxiety symptoms at a single monthly follow-up early in the pandemic (May 2020 to July 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT03199651). Hierarchical linear multiple regression analysis was used to identify the relationship of stressor variables to depressive and anxiety symptoms in this cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Hierarchical linear models revealed cancer stress was a significant predictor of both depressive symptoms (F(14,30) = 5.327, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.71, adjusted R2 = 0.58) and anxiety symptoms (F(14,30) = 4.513, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.68, adjusted R2 = 0.53) for patients at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. By contrast, COVID-19 stress was not a significant predictor of depressive (F(13,31) = 1.415 p = .21, R2 = .37, adjusted R2 = .11) or anxiety symptoms (F(13,31) = 1.23, p = .30, R2 = .34, adjusted R2 = - .07). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced lung cancer patients during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic reported cancer stress as more important than COVID-19 stress in relation to their mental health. Empirically supported biobehavioral and cognitive behavioral treatments remain important to reducing psychological symptoms and enhancing patients' quality of life.

A cognitive-behavioral model of dyspnea: Qualitative interviews with individuals with advanced lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Shortness of breath, or dyspnea, is the subjective experience of breathing discomfort and is a common, distressing, and debilitating symptom of lung cancer. There are no efficacious pharmacological treatments, but there is suggestive evidence that cognitive-behavioral treatments could relieve dyspnea. For this, understanding the psychological, behavioral, and social factors that may affect dyspnea severity is critical. To this end, patients with dyspnea were interviewed with questions framed by the cognitive-behavioral model-emphasizing thoughts, emotions, and behaviors as contributors and outcomes of dyspnea. METHODS: Two trained individuals conducted semi-structured interviews with lung cancer patients (N = 15) reporting current dyspnea. Interviews assessed patients' cognitive-behavioral experiences with dyspnea. Study personnel used a grounded theory approach for qualitative analysis to code the interviews. Inter-rater reliability of codes was high (κ = 0.90). RESULTS: Thoughts: Most common were patients' catastrophic thoughts about their health and receiving enough oxygen when breathless. Emotions: Anxiety about dyspnea was the most common, followed by anger, sadness, and shame related to dyspnea. Behaviors: Patients rested and took deep breaths to relieve acute episodes of dyspnea. To reduce the likelihood of dyspnea, patients planned their daily activity or reduced their physical activity at the expense of engagement in hobbies and functional activities. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Patients identified cognitive-behavioral factors (thoughts, emotions, and behaviors) that coalesce with dyspnea. The data provide meaningful insights into potential cognitive-behavioral interventions that could target contributors to dyspnea.

Cancer Treatment During COVID-19: Resilience of Individuals With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Versus Community Controls.

BACKGROUND: Among all patients with cancer, those with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience the most distress. Although new therapies are improving survival, it is unknown whether receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic increases patients' psychological vulnerability. To meet clinical needs, knowledge of patients' COVID-19 perceptions and safety behaviors is essential. Thus, this study compared patients' psychological responses at diagnosis and during COVID-19 and compared patients with similar individuals without cancer during the same period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled at diagnosis for cohort study participated (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03199651). Those with follow-ups from April 28, 2020, through July 14, 2020 (n=76), were assessed again including COVID-19 measures. Simultaneously, community controls with similar sociodemographics and smoking histories were solicited (n=67). Measures were COVID-19 perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), social distancing, and depressive (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) symptoms. First, analyses evaluated differences in the psychological responses of patients with NSCLC at diagnosis and during COVID-19. Second, patients and controls were contrasted on COVID-19 perceptions, social distancing, and psychological symptoms. RESULTS: The depressive and anxious symptoms of patients with NSCLC were greater at diagnosis (P<.02) than during COVID-19, approximately 1 year later. Patients with NSCLC and controls did not differ in terms of sociodemographics, except those with NSCLC were more racially diverse and older, and had greater smoking history (P<.03). Groups did not differ regarding concern, understanding, or perceived control over COVID-19 (P>.406). Notably, controls anticipated the COVID threat would last longer, practiced more social distancing, were more concerned about family (P<.04), and reported worse psychological symptoms (P<.023). With less depression and anxiety, patients with NSCLC viewed COVID-19 as a shorter-term threat and had fewer COVID-19-related worries than did controls. For controls, COVID-19 was more salient, heightening worries and psychological symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite multiple health stressors, patients with NSCLC demonstrated resilience when receiving cancer treatment during COVID-19. Nonetheless, this population remains psychologically vulnerable, requiring support at diagnosis and thereafter.

Replicating dissemination and identifying mechanisms of implementation of an empirically supported treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation research is needed in cancer control. Replication of the dissemination of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) is important as is the identification of mechanisms by which dissemination leads to implementation. Addressing these gaps, Study 1 (Cohorts 3-6, N = 104) tests for replication of a successful dissemination to community providers (Brothers et al., 2015; Cohorts 1-2; N = 62) and Study 2 (Cohorts 1-6) tests providers' changes on dissemination outcomes as mechanisms of EST usage. METHOD: The Biobehavioral Intervention (BBI), a psychological EST in cancer control, was disseminated to oncology mental health providers using manual provision, didactics, roleplays, and other strategies. Study 1 tested for pre/post changes in dissemination outcomes (BBI knowledge/skills and attitudes toward and self-efficacy to deliver ESTs/BBI) between cohorts (1-2 vs. 3-6) with repeated measures ANOVAs. In Study 2, the implementation outcome was providers' (N = 166) BBI usage with patients (percent treated). Structural equation models tested dissemination outcome changes as predictors of usage at 2- and 4-months. RESULTS: Study 1 replicated high dissemination outcomes and significant gains in BBI knowledge (p < .001) in Cohorts 3-6. Unlike Cohorts 1-2, significant gains were observed in self-efficacy (ps < .001) but not attitudes toward ESTs (p = .523) in Cohorts 3-6. In Study 2, gains in providers' self-efficacy (ps < .05) and EST attitudes (p = .008) predicted greater 2-month (58.4% ± 35.5%) and 4-month (66.2% ± 35.0%) usage of the BBI with patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the only replication of a dissemination for a psychological EST in cancer control. Results reliably show disseminations enhancing providers' self-efficacy to use and positive attitudes toward ESTs as mechanisms for EST implementation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Sustainability of a biobehavioral intervention implemented by therapists and sustainment in community settings.

The ultimate aim of dissemination and implementation of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in behavioral medicine is (a) sustainability of the therapist/provider's EST usage and (b) sustainment of EST delivery in the setting. Thus far, sustainability has been understudied, and the therapist and setting variables that may be influential are unclear. The purpose of the study was to test the therapists' sustainability of a cancer-specific EST using a prospective longitudinal design and examine its predictors. Oncology mental health therapists (N = 134) from diverse settings (N = 110) completed training in the biobehavioral intervention (BBI) and were provided with 6 months of support for implementation, with no support thereafter. BBI usage (percent of patients treated) was reported at 2, 4, 6, and 12 months. Using a generalized estimating equation with a logistic link function, 12-month sustainability (a nonsignificant change in usage from 6 to 12 months) was studied along with therapist, supervisor, and setting variables as predictors. BBI usage increased through 6 months and, importantly, usage was sustained from 6 (68.4% [95% CI = 62.2%-73.9%]) to 12 months (70.9% [95% CI = 63.6%-77.3%]), with sustainment in 66 settings (60.0%). Predictors of implementation-to-sustainability usage were therapists' early intentions to use the BBI (p < .001) and from the setting, supervisors' positive attitudes toward ESTs (p = .016). Adding to the DI literature, a health psychology intervention was disseminated, implemented, and found sustainable across diverse therapists and settings. Therapists and setting predictors of usage, if modified, might facilitate future sustainability/sustainment of ESTs.

Predicting implementation of an empirically supported treatment for cancer patients using the theory of planned behavior.

BACKGROUND: There is a continuing gap between the availability of cancer control empirically supported treatments (ESTs) to address psychological needs of cancer patients and their dissemination to and implementation by providers in the community. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), with constructs of attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and intentions, is used to understand the pathways to and prediction of providers' behavior, that is, implementation of a cancer control EST and its provision to patients. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to prospectively test the TPB in predicting providers' usage of a cancer-specific EST, the biobehavioral intervention (BBI). METHOD: Providers (N = 166) were trained. At training's end, providers completed measures of attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions to use the BBI, and their supervisors completed measures of attitudes operationalized as subjective norms. Providers were followed up and 4 months later reported their usage of the BBI with patients in the last 2 months. Regression-based path analyses tested attitudes, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and intentions as predictors of BBI usage and for the possible effect of intentions as a mediator. RESULTS: Provider's BBI usage was high, delivered to 65.6% of patients. Providers' attitudes toward the BBI (b = .006; 95% confidence interval [CI: .002, .010]) and subjective norms (supervisors' attitudes toward providers' EST usage; b = .021; 95% CI [.007, .034]) predicted usage. Intentions predicted usage in univariate analyses but was not a mediator for usage. CONCLUSIONS: Use of theory in implementation science can test and identify variables key to implementation success. Here the TPB identified providers' and supervisors' attitudes as predictors of EST usage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

A confirmatory factor analysis of the MATRICS consensus cognitive battery in severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: A recent factor analysis of Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) data in a sample of schizophrenia-spectrum patients described a three factor model representing processing speed, attention/working memory, and learning; the social cognition measure was excluded from the analysis. The current analyses sought to replicate a three factor structure of the MCCB in a larger, more diagnostically diverse sample of participants. METHODS: Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to evaluate the factor structure of the MCCB in 300 outpatients with severe mental illness (54.3% schizophrenia-spectrum diagnoses) who were participants in three studies of cognitive remediation. Exploratory analyses were conducted to evaluate the concurrent prediction of symptoms from MCCB factor scores. RESULTS: The three factor structure of the MCCB demonstrated stronger model fit (χ(2)=14.53, p=0.75, SRMR=0.02, RMSEA=0.0, CFI=1.00, NNFI=1.01) than the unifactoral structure. Poorer cognitive performance across all three MCCB factors was significantly correlated with more severe overall and disorganization symptoms from the PANSS and BPRS, and less severe affective symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety) in the overall sample. CONCLUSIONS: A three factor structure of the MCCB-composed of processing speed, attention/working memory, and learning-was replicated in a heterogeneous sample of persons with severe mental illness. Cognitive performance on the MCCB factors is associated with clinical symptoms.