A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer : accrual, retention, and data collection issues

Lambert, Sylvie D., McElduff, Patrick, Girgis, Afaf, Levesque, Janelle V., Regan, Tim W., Turner, Jane, Candler, Hayley, Mihalopoulos, Cathrine, Shih, Sophy T.F., Kayser, Karen and Chong, Peter 2016, A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer : accrual, retention, and data collection issues, Support care cancer, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 711-722, doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2833-3.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title A pilot, multisite, randomized controlled trial of a self-directed coping skills training intervention for couples facing prostate cancer : accrual, retention, and data collection issues
Author(s) Lambert, Sylvie D.
McElduff, Patrick
Girgis, Afaf
Levesque, Janelle V.
Regan, Tim W.
Turner, Jane
Candler, Hayley
Mihalopoulos, CathrineORCID iD for Mihalopoulos, Cathrine orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-9462
Shih, Sophy T.F.ORCID iD for Shih, Sophy T.F. orcid.org/0000-0003-0049-2888
Kayser, Karen
Chong, Peter
Journal name Support care cancer
Volume number 24
Issue number 2
Start page 711
End page 722
Total pages 12
Publisher Springer
Place of publication Berlin, Germany
Publication date 2016
ISSN 1433-7339
Keyword(s) caregivers
coping
partners
pilot study
self-care
self-directed intervention
Summary PURPOSE: To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data. METHODS: Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.
Language eng
DOI 10.1007/s00520-015-2833-3
Field of Research 111299 Oncology and Carcinogenesis not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 920102 Cancer and Related Disorders
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2015, Springer
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30078429

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: Population Health
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 14 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 13 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 192 Abstract Views, 4 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 24 Sep 2015, 14:10:23 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.