Search

Background: Evidence-based, easily accessible, supportive interventions for partners of cancer patients are limited, despite the fact that they often suffer from diminished emotional, social, physical, and relational functioning. To develop a new intervention that will fit their demands, it is important to consult potential users. Objective: To examine partners' interest in a Web-based psychological intervention and to identify their needs and wishes regarding such an intervention. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 partners of cancer patients, who varied in terms of age, gender, education, employment, type, and stage of disease. Partners were asked (1) whether they would use a psychological Web-based intervention and which preconditions (maximum time, structure, participate alone or with their partner) it should meet; (2) which functionalities (information, peer support, online psychological counseling) the intervention should contain; and (3) which topics (eg, taking care of oneself) should be addressed. Data were coded by 2 coders independently. Results: The need for a Web-based intervention varied. Arguments for being interested in a Web-based intervention included the need for acknowledgement; the need for someone they could talk to; and the need for information, tips, and support. Based on their experiences as a partner of a cancer patient, participants would prefer an intervention that is not too time-consuming (about 1-2 hours a week) and which is based on a "step-by-step" approach, meaning that the content of the intervention should match the stage of their partner's disease. Also, they would prefer a positive approach, which means that the intervention should be a source of hope and energy. Most participants stated that they would prefer to participate without their ill spouse, because they do not want to burden their partners with their own problems. An intervention should contain information and optional peer support. Participants' opinions about online psychological counseling in the intervention were divided. Arguments for online psychological counseling were that a professional could check on them and they were able to ask questions. Arguments against online counseling were that partners were not in need for guidance or they had enough support from usual care. Topics with the highest priority were "coping with feelings and emotions," "should I or shouldn't I spare my partner?," "communicating with each other," "asking for help and refusing help," and "moving on with life after cancer treatment." Furthermore, participants suggested additional topics of "dare to enjoy" and "acceptance of the patient's disease." Conclusions: A Web-based intervention can be a valuable addition to existing support initiatives for partners of cancer patients. This study provides important information about the content and form of such an intervention. Flexibility and a positive approach seem to be the most important features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Smoking cessation (SC) interventions may contribute to better treatment outcomes and the general well-being of cancer survivors.Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of a digital interactive SC intervention compared with a noninteractive web-based information brochure for cancer survivors.Methods: A health economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic 2-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted with follow-ups at 3, 6, and 12 months. The study was conducted in the Netherlands over the internet from November 2016 to September 2019. The participants were Dutch adult smoking cancer survivors with the intention to quit smoking. In total, 165 participants were included and analyzed: 83 (50.3%) in the MyCourse group and 82 (49.7%) in the control group. In the intervention group, participants had access to a newly developed, digital, minimally guided SC intervention (MyCourse-Quit Smoking). Control group participants received a noninteractive web-based information brochure on SC. Both groups received unrestricted access to usual care. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day smoking abstinence at the 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years gained, number of cigarettes smoked, nicotine dependence, and treatment satisfaction. For the health economic evaluation, intervention costs, health care costs, and costs stemming from productivity losses were assessed over a 12-month horizon.Results: At the 6-month follow-up, the quit rates were 28% (23/83) and 26% (21/82) in the MyCourse and control groups, respectively (odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.86; P=.60). In both groups, nicotine dependence scores were reduced at 12 months, and the number of smoked cigarettes was reduced by approximately half. The number of cigarettes decreased more over time, and the MyCourse group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction at the 12-month follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.00; P=.04). Intervention costs were estimated at US $193 per participant for the MyCourse group and US $74 for the control group. The mean per-participant societal costs were US $25,329 (SD US $29,137) and US $21,836 (SD US $25,792), respectively. In the cost-utility analysis, MyCourse was not preferred over the control group from a societal perspective. With smoking behavior as the outcome, the MyCourse group led to marginally better results per reduced pack-year against higher societal costs, with a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $52,067 (95% CI US $32,515-US $81,346).Conclusions: At 6 months, there was no evidence of a differential effect on cessation rates; in both groups, approximately a quarter of the cancer survivors quit smoking and their number of cigarettes smoked was reduced by half. At 12 months, the MyCourse intervention led to a greater reduction in the number of smoked cigarettes, albeit at higher costs than for the control group. No evidence was found for a differential effect on quality-adjusted life years.Trial Registration: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR6011; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5434.International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): RR2-10.1186/s12885-018-4206-z. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The eHealth Impact Questionnaire (eHIQ) provides a standardized method to measure attitudes of electronic health (eHealth) users toward eHealth. It has previously been validated in a population of eHealth users in the United Kingdom and consists of 2 parts and 5 subscales. Part 1 measures attitudes toward eHealth in general and consists of the subscales attitudes towards online health information (5 items) and attitudes towards sharing health experiences online (6 items). Part 2 measures the attitude toward a particular eHealth application and consists of the subscales confidence and identification (9 items), information and presentation (8 items), and understand and motivation (9 items).Objective: This study aimed to translate and validate the eHIQ in a Dutch population of eHealth users.Methods: The eHIQ was translated and validated in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments criteria. The validation comprised 3 study samples, with a total of 1287 participants. Structural validity was assessed using confirmatory factor analyses and exploratory factor analyses (EFAs; all 3 samples). Internal consistency was assessed using hierarchical omega (all 3 samples). Test-retest reliability was assessed after 2 weeks, using 2-way intraclass correlation coefficients (sample 1). Measurement error was assessed by calculating the smallest detectable change (sample 1). Convergent and divergent validity were assessed using correlations with the remaining measures (all 3 samples). A graded response model was fit, and item information curves were plotted to describe the information provided by items across item trait levels (all 3 samples).Results: The original factor structure showed a bad fit in all 3 study samples. EFAs showed a good fit for a modified factor structure in the first study sample. This factor structure was subsequently tested in samples 2 and 3 and showed acceptable to good fits. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and divergent validity were acceptable to good for both the original as the modified factor structure, except for test-retest reliability of one of the original subscales and the 2 derivative subscales in the modified factor structure. The graded response model showed that some items underperformed in both the original and modified factor structure.Conclusions: The Dutch version of the eHIQ (eHIQ-NL) shows a different factor structure compared with the original English version. Part 1 of the eHIQ-NL consists of 3 subscales: attitudes towards online health information (5 items), comfort with sharing health experiences online (3 items), and usefulness of sharing health experiences online (3 items). Part 2 of the eHIQ-NL consists of 3 subscales: motivation and confidence to act (10 items), information and presentation (13 items), and identification (3 items). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During a 6-week course of (chemo)radiation many head and neck cancer patients have to endure radiotherapy-induced toxicity, negatively affecting patients' quality of life. Pretreatment counseling combined with self-help exercises could be provided to inform patients and possibly prevent them from having speech, swallowing, and shoulder problems during and after treatment. Objective: Our goal was to investigate the feasibility of a multimodal guided self-help exercise program entitled Head Matters during (chemo)radiation in head and neck cancer patients. Methods: Head and neck cancer patients treated with primary (chemo)radiation or after surgery were asked to perform Head Matters at home. This prophylactic exercise program, offered in three different formats, aims to reduce the risk of developing speech, swallowing, shoulder problems, and a stiff neck. Weekly coaching was provided by a speech and swallowing therapist. Patients filled out a diary to keep track of their exercise activity. To gain insight into possible barriers and facilitators to exercise adherence, reports of weekly coaching sessions were analyzed by 2 coders independently. Results: Of 41 eligible patients, 34 patients were willing to participate (83% uptake). Of participating patients, 21 patients completed the program (64% adherence rate). The majority of participants (58%) had a moderate to high level of exercise performance. Exercise performance level was not significantly associated with age (P=.50), gender (P=.42), tumor subsite (P=1.00) or tumor stage (P=.20), treatment modality (P=.72), or Head Matters format (Web-based or paper) (P=1.00). Based on patients' diaries and weekly coaching sessions, patients' perceived barriers to exercise were a decreased physical condition, treatment-related barriers, emotional problems, lack of motivation, social barriers, and technical problems. Patients' perceived facilitators included an increased physical condition, feeling motivated, and social and technical facilitators. Conclusions: Head Matters, a multimodal guided self-help exercise program is feasible for head and neck cancer patients undergoing (chemo)radiation. Several barriers (decreased physical condition, treatment-related barriers) and facilitators (increased physical condition, feeling motivated) were identified providing directions for future studies. The next step is conducting a study investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of Head Matters on speech, swallowing, shoulder function, and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]