Edwards, Hannah

Abstract Background Despite 40 years of evidence supporting psychosocial interventions as a component of comprehensive cancer care, patients continue to report vast unmet psychosocial needs and distress. Cognitive behavioral therapies for cancer distress (CBT-C) are the most rigorously tested class of psychosocial interventions for cancer care. Purpose To report clinical effectiveness outcomes of cancer-related distress and self-efficacy following implementation of best-evidence CBT-C, adapted for a real-world, billable practice setting. Methods Patients who completed group-delivered, CBT-C (10 intervention hours, 5 sessions) in the practice setting were invited to enroll in a research study to document cancer distress across the year following CBT-C. Participants (n = 65) were primarily middle-aged (mean 50.5 years, 17% were young adults ≤40 years), female, and White. Analyses utilized mixed linear models with intent-to-treat procedures. Given group delivery and social skills training content within CBT-C, social self-efficacy was assessed as a potential treatment mechanism. Results Distress decreased across the year following CBT-C (mean score change of 20 points for YAs, 6 points for non-YAs), with statistically significant age x time effects. Within-person improvements in social self-efficacy scores were related to reductions in cancer distress, including distress subscales of intrusive thoughts, avoidant coping, and hyperarousal. The model explained 76.6% of the total variance in cancer distress. Conclusions This study demonstrates the effective translation of CBT-C from controlled research trials to the practice setting. CBT-C effectiveness within a mixed-cancer population and relatively rural region of the US is also supported. CBT-C can be effectively translated to the practice settings for which it is intended.

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo explore pre–hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) demographic, disease, and psychological factors predictive of future transplant regret and to determine post‐HSCT variables associated with regret.Patients and MethodsHSCT candidates participated in a prospective cohort study (June 2008–October 2013) examining health behaviors and HSCT outcomes, including completion of standardized surveys at pre‐HSCT (baseline) and 1‐year post‐HSCT. Cases were participants that endorsed regret at 1‐year post‐HSCT follow‐up, and controls were participants without regret at 1 year, matched on age, sex, and transplant type. For cases and controls, pre‐HSCT psychosocial evaluations were abstracted from the electronic health record and coded to determine the Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation score, psychosocial stressors, and mental health diagnoses. The association of selected factors with regret was estimated with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals from conditional logistic regression models.ResultsAt post‐HSCT, 49 participants of 638 endorsed transplant regret (8%) and formed the case group; 98 controls were matched from remaining participants. Cases and controls were well matched on age (56.6 vs. 57.2 years), sex (both groups 34.7% female), and transplant type (both groups 81.6% autologous). After controlling for the number of hospitalizations and active treatment status, conditional logistic regression revealed that patients who endorsed regret were 3.7 times (95% CI = 1.37–9.69, p = 0.008) more likely to not be in remission compared to controls at 1‐year post‐HSCT.ConclusionMatched case–control analyses revealed that no pre‐HSCT variables collected during the pre‐HSCT evaluation period were predictive of transplant regret, while poorer outcomes at 1‐year after transplant were associated with regret.