Search

Most patients are not able to achieve recommended levels of physical activity following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Existing interventions to promote activity have not focused on promoting psychological well-being, which is independently linked to superior cardiac health. To address this gap, we developed and tested a combined positive psychology-motivational interviewing (PP-MI) intervention in post-ACS patients to assess its feasibility and explore potential benefits in an initial randomized trial. We compared a 12-week, phone-delivered, PP-MI intervention to an attention-matched, MI-based health education control condition among 47 post-ACS patients with low baseline health behavior adherence. Feasibility/acceptability were assessed through rates of session completion and participant session ratings; we also explored between-group differences in positive affect, other self-reported outcomes, and accelerometer-measured physical activity, through mixed effects regression models, at 12 and 24 weeks. PP-MI participants completed a mean of 10.0 (standard deviation 2.2) sessions (84%), and mean participant ratings of sessions' ease/utility were >8/10, above a priori thresholds for success. Compared with the control condition, PP-MI was associated with greater improvements in positive affect at 12 and 24 weeks (12 weeks: estimated mean difference [EMD] = 3.90 [SE = 1.95], p = 0.045, effect size [ES] = 0.56; 24 weeks: EMD = 7.34 [SE = 2.16], p <0.001, ES = 1.12). PP-MI was also associated with more daily steps at 12 weeks (EMD = 1842.1 steps/day [SE = 849.8], p = 0.030, ES = 0.76) and greater moderate-vigorous activity at 24 weeks (EMD = 15.1 minutes/day [SE = 6.8], p = 0.026, ES = 0.81). In conclusion, PP-MI was feasible in post-ACS patients and showed promising effects on well-being and physical activity; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Despite the well-established risks of persistent smoking, 10–30% of cancer patients continue to smoke after diagnosis. Evidence-based tobacco treatment has yet to be integrated into routine oncology care. This paper describes the protocol, manualized treatment, evaluation plan, and overall study design of comparing the effectiveness and cost of two treatments across two major cancer centers. Methods/design A two-arm, two-site randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial is testing the hypothesis that an Intensive Treatment (IT) intervention is more effective than a Standard Treatment (ST) intervention in helping recently diagnosed cancer patients quit smoking. Both interventions include 4 weekly counseling sessions and FDA-approved smoking cessation medication advice. The IT includes an additional 4 biweekly and 3 monthly booster sessions as well as dispensal of the recommended FDA-approved smoking cessation medication at no cost. The trial is enrolling patients with suspected or newly diagnosed cancer who have smoked a cigarette in the past 30 days. Participants are randomly assigned to receive the ST or IT condition. Tobacco cessation outcomes are assessed at 3 and 6 months. The primary study outcome is 7-day point prevalence biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence. Secondary study outcomes include the incremental cost-effectiveness of the IT vs. ST. Discussion This trial will answer key questions about delivering tobacco treatment interventions to newly diagnosed cancer patients. If found to be efficacious and cost-effective, this treatment will serve as a model to be integrated into oncology care settings nation-wide, as we strive to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]