Citations

BACKGROUNDCognitive‐behavioral stress management interventions are associated with improved psychological well‐being for cancer survivors. The availability of, access to, and outreach of these in‐person interventions are limited, however. The current study, therefore, evaluated the efficacy of StressProffen, a digital application (app)–based stress management intervention for cancer survivors, in a 12‐month randomized controlled trial.METHODSCancer survivors 1 year or less after their treatment (N = 172) were randomized to the StressProffen intervention (n = 84) or a usual‐care control group (n = 88). The intervention was delivered in a simple blended care model: 1) 1 in‐person introduction session, 2) 10 app‐based cognitive‐behavioral stress management modules, and 3) 2 follow‐up phone calls. Stress (Perceived Stress Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), self‐regulatory fatigue (Self‐Regulatory Fatigue 18), and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL; RAND‐36) were examined at the baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Generalized linear models for repeated measures were fitted to compare effects over time.RESULTSParticipants were mainly female (82%), had a mean age of 52 years (standard deviation, 11.3 years; range, 20‐78 years), and had a variety of cancer types (mostly breast cancer [48%]). Over the 12‐month study time, the intervention group reported significantly decreased stress (P < .001), depression (P = .003), and self‐regulatory fatigue (P = .002) as well as improved HRQOL (for 6 of 8 domains, P ≤ .015) in comparison with controls. The largest favored effects for the intervention group were observed at 6 months: stress (estimated mean difference [MD], –5.1; P < .001), anxiety (MD, –1.4; P = .015), depression (MD, –2.1; P < .001), self‐regulatory fatigue (MD, –4.9; P < .001), and HRQOL (7 of 8 domains; P ≤ .037).CONCLUSIONSDigital stress management interventions such as StressProffen have the potential to extend the outreach of psychological interventions and provide easily available and effective psychosocial support for cancer survivors.

When COVID-19 caused worldwide cancellations of summer research immersion programs in 2020, Mayo Clinic rallied to create an alternate virtual experience called Summer Foundations in Research (SFIR). SFIR was designed not only to ensure the continuance of science pathways training for undergraduate scientists but also to support undergraduate mental wellbeing, given the known pandemic stressors. A total of 170 participants took part in the program and were surveyed pre-post for outcomes in biomedical research career knowledge, biomedical research career interest, research skills confidence, and three dimensions of mental wellbeing. Knowledge of and interest in careers involving biomedical research rose significantly following participation in SFIR. The participants’ mean research skills confidence also rose between 0.08 and 1.32 points on a 7-point scale across 12 items from the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory. Success in science pathways support was accompanied by positive shifts in participant mental wellbeing. Measurable decreases in stress (Perceived Stress Scale, p < 0.0001) accompanied gains in resilience (Brief Resilience Scale, p < 0.0001) and life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale, p = 0.0005). Collectively, the data suggest that core objectives of traditional in-person summer research programming can be accomplished virtually and that these programs can simultaneously impact student wellbeing. This theoretical framework is particularly salient during COVID-19, but the increased accessibility of virtual programs such as SFIR can continue to bolster science education pathways long after the pandemic is gone.

AbstractBackgroundIn‐person cognitive‐behavioral stress‐management interventions are consistently associated with reduced cancer distress. However, face‐to‐face delivery is an access barrier for many patients, and there is a need to develop remote‐delivered interventions. The current study evaluated the preliminary efficacy of an application (app)‐based cancer stress‐management intervention, StressProffen, in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsCancer survivors, maximum 1‐year posttreatment (N = 172), were randomized to StressProffen (n = 84) or a usual care control group (n = 88). Participants received a blended delivery care model: (a) one face‐to‐face introduction session, (b) 10 app‐based cognitive‐behavioral stress‐management modules, and (c) follow‐up phone calls at weeks 2‐3 and 6‐7. Outcome measures included stress (Perceived Stress Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale), and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL; Short‐Form Health Surveys [SF‐36]) at 3‐months post‐intervention, analyzed with change scores as dependent variables in linear regression models.ResultsParticipants were primarily women (82%), aged 20‐78 years (mean 52, SD 11.2), with mixed cancer types (majority breast cancer; 48%). Analysis of 149 participants completing questionnaires at baseline and 3 months revealed significant intervention effects: decreased stress (mean difference [MD] −2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], [−5.2 to −0.4]; P = .022) and improved HRQoL (Role Physical MD = 17.7, [CI 3.7‐31.3], P = .013; Social Functioning MD = 8.5, [CI 0.7‐16.2], P = .034; Role Emotional MD = 19.5, [CI 3.7‐35.2], P = .016; Mental Health MD = 6.7, [CI 1.7‐11.6], P = .009). No significant changes were observed for anxiety or depression.ConclusionsDigital‐based cancer stress‐management interventions, such as StressProffen, have the potential to provide easily accessible, effective psychosocial support for cancer survivors.

9057 Background: The incidence of CAM use among patients with cancer is higher when compared to the general population. However, there are few studies examining CAM use in NHL survivors, and limited data are available regarding beliefs in CAM. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of CAM use in NHL, define CAM beliefs among NHL survivors, and explore differences between patients with indolent and aggressive lymphoma. Methods: Newly diagnosed lymphoma patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource from 2002-2008. NHL patients who completed the 3-year post diagnosis questionnaire, which includes questions regarding CAM use and beliefs, were included in this study. Chi-squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess the association of CAM use with prognostic and demographic factors. Results: 719 patients were included with a median age of 63 years (range 22-92). 53% were male. Overall, 636 (89%) reported ever using CAM. 78% of patients used vitamins and 54% alternative therapies (chiropractic (36%) and massage therapy (24%)). Among CAM users, 141 (22%) believe CAM can assist the body to heal, 123 (19%) believe CAM can relieve cancer symptoms, 115 (18%) believe CAM use gives a feeling of control, 106 (17%) believe CAM can boost immunity, 24 (4%) believe CAM can cure cancer, and 35 (6%) believe CAM can prevent the spread of cancer. Female gender was associated with increased overall CAM use (p<0.0001) as well as use of vitamins (p<0.0001), herbal supplements (p=0.006) and alternative therapy (p=0.0002) specifically for cancer. Older age was also associated with increased vitamin use (p=0.005) and decreased herbal supplements use (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in overall CAM use between those with follicular lymphoma grades I-II (n=195, 91%) and non-relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=151, 87%), although massage therapy was utilized more often by FL survivors (29% versus 18%, p=0.005). Conclusions: CAM modalities are used by the majority of NHL survivors (89%). The assessment of CAM use and education regarding potential harms is imperative for the NHL survivor.

Abstract Background: The treatment of cancer-related symptoms continues to represent a major challenge for health care providers. Traditional approaches often require pharmacologic interventions which have potential side effects. A wide variety of approaches using complementary and alternative medicine (including music therapy) have demonstrated some early benefit. The role of a visual art intervention on pain, anxiety and mood has not been studied to date. Patients and Methods: Our patient population consisted of 21 Hematology inpatients at the Mayo Clinic (19 women, 2 men with a median age of 53.4 years, [range19 to 73]), with the following hematological disorders: Acute Leukemia (n = 6); Lymphoma (n = 5); Multiple Myeloma (n = 5); and a variety of other malignant conditions (n =5). Patients and their families were invited to participate actively or passively (i.e. observe) in a 1 to1 visual art intervention, conducted by a trained artist educator using different forms of art media. Baseline assessments of pain, anxiety and mood were conducted just prior to the intervention using Visual Analog scales (VAS), the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) respectively. The same scales were administered immediately following completion of the art intervention. Results: Twenty of 21 patients completed the intervention, and all 20 patients actively participated. A significant improvement in positive mood scores (4.6 [95%CI: (1.7, 7.5)] or 14.6% change, p=0.003), decrease in negative mood scores (−3.4 [95%CI: (−0.7, −6.1)] or 18% change, p=0.016) and in anxiety scores (−9.2 [95%CI: (−14.2, −4.1)] or 21.6% change, p=0.001) were observed. Among the 14 patients who reported some pain (VAS>0) prior to the intervention, the mean VAS pain score improved significantly (−1.4 [95%CI: (−2.4, −0.3)] or 35.1% change, p=0.017). Universally all patients commented that they would participate in art-based interventions in the future Conclusions Bedside visual art interventions can decrease pain and anxiety, and improve mood in hospitalized hematological patients with cancer diagnoses. These intriguing findings warrant future placebo-controlled studies, and suggest that these alternative measures should be considered as an adjunct to conventional therapies in patients with cancer-related pain, and symptoms of anxiety and decreased mood.

Abstract Psychosocial eHealth intervention programs for cancer survivors are still in their infancy, with inconsistent findings so far in the scientific literature. The aim of this study was to explore system use, usefulness, ease of use, and preliminary effects of Stress Proffen, an app-based cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention for patients with cancer. A feasibility pilot project tested the intervention with cancer survivors (N = 25). The intervention contained (a) one face-to-face introduction session, (b) 10 app-based modules with stress management educational material and exercises, and (c) one follow-up phone call. Post-intervention interviews were conducted and user log-data were extracted. Outcome measures—Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Anxiety and Depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL; SF-36), and Self-Regulatory Fatigue (SRF-18)—were completed at baseline and post-intervention. Participants were primarily women (84%), age 34–71 (mean 48) and represented a variety of cancer diagnoses (majority breast cancer: 40%). Twenty-two participants completed all (pre–post) questionnaires. Sixteen participants (67%) completed at least 7 of 10 modules within the 8-week study period. Post-intervention interviews described StressProffen as providing a new, appreciated, and easily accessible stress management tool for the cancer survivors. Dependent/paired t-tests showed significant pre–post intervention effects with significant decrease in stress (p = .008), anxiety (p = .019), and self-regulatory fatigue (p = .025), and improved HRQoL (Role Physical, General Health, Vitality, and Role Emotional, all p’s &lt;.01). App-based stress management interventions such as StressProffen can provide appreciated support for cancer survivors, should be easy to use, can provide significant stress reduction, and improve emotional well-being. Further testing in a randomized controlled trial is warranted and is in progress. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0293961.

Tobacco use adversely affects transplant outcomes such as graft survival, patient survival, and other conditions that alter transplant patient longevity. Especially concerning is tobacco's relationship to cardiovascular disease, the number 1 cause of death in kidney transplant recipients. Many authors conclude that tobacco interventions ought to be provided to patients and sometimes lament that there are no tobacco dependence interventions designed for kidney transplant recipients. European Best Practice Guidelines for Renal Transplantation also support tobacco dependence interventions. The purpose of this article is to describe one institution's experience in implementing the clinical practice guideline for treating tobacco use and dependence within a kidney and pancreas transplant program.

AbstractObjectivePatients with chronic multisymptom illnesses such as fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are experiencing a multitude of physical and mental challenges. Facing such challenges may drain capacity to self‐regulate, and research suggests patients with these illnesses may experience self‐regulatory fatigue (SRF). This study sought to examine whether SRF can be associated with quality of life (QoL) in patients with FMS.MethodsPatients (N = 258) diagnosed with FMS completed self‐report measures related to demographics, SRF (Self‐Regulatory Fatigue 18 [SRF‐18]), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire [GAD‐7]), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ‐9]), physical fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory [MFI]), symptoms related to FMS (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire [FIQ]), and QoL (36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey [SF‐36]).ResultsHierarchical regressions showed higher SRF to be associated with lower QoL in terms of lower overall physical QoL, with subscales related to physical functioning, role limitations—physical, bodily pain, and general health (all P's > 0.001), as well as lower overall mental QoL, with subscales related to vitality, social functioning, role limitations—emotional, and mental health (all P's > 0.001). Including traditional predictors such as anxiety, depression, physical fatigue, and FMS‐related symptoms as covariates in the analyses reduced the link between SRF and QoL somewhat, but the associations remained generally strong, particularly for SRF and mental QoL.ConclusionThis is the first study to show higher SRF relating to lower QoL for patients with FMS. Results suggest that SRF is distinct from anxiety, depression, and fatigue, and predicts QoL above and beyond these traditional factors in the area of chronic multisymptom illnesses such as FMS. SRF may be a “missing link” in understanding the complex nature of chronic multisymptom illnesses.