Citations

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.

Background: Cancer distress management is an evidence-based component of comprehensive cancer care. Group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer distress (CBT-C) is the first distress treatment associated with replicated survival advantages in randomized clinical trials. Despite research supporting patient satisfaction, improved outcomes, and reduced costs, CBT-C has not been tested sufficiently within billable clinical settings, profoundly reducing patient access to best-evidence care. This study aimed to adapt and implement manualized CBT-C as a billable clinical service. Patients and Methods: A stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods, hybrid implementation study design was used, and the study was conducted in 3 phases: (1) stakeholder engagement and adaptation of CBT-C delivery, (2) patient and therapist user testing and adaptation of CBT-C content, and (3) implementation of practice-adapted CBT-C as a billable clinical service focused on evaluation of reach, acceptability, and feasibility across stakeholder perspectives. Results: A total of 40 individuals and 7 interdisciplinary group stakeholders collectively identified 7 primary barriers (eg, number of sessions, workflow concerns, patient geographic distance from center) and 9 facilitators (eg, favorable financial model, emergence of oncology champions). CBT-C adaptations made before implementation included expanding eligibility criteria beyond breast cancer, reducing number of sessions to 5 (10 total hours), eliminating and adding content, and revising language and images. During implementation, 252 patients were eligible; 100 (40%) enrolled in CBT-C (99% covered by insurance). The primary reason for declining enrollment was geographic distance. Of enrollees, 60 (60%) consented to research participation (75% women; 92% white). All research participants completed at least 60% of content (6 of 10 hours), with 98% reporting they would recommend CBT-C to family and friends. Conclusions: CBT-C implementation as a billable clinical service was acceptable and feasible across cancer care stakeholder measures. Future research is needed to replicate acceptability and feasibility results in more diverse patient groups, test effectiveness in clinical settings, and reduce barriers to access via remote delivery platforms.

This pilot study examined the functional impact of computerized versus compensatory calendar training in cognitive rehabilitation participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Fifty-seven participants with amnestic MCI completed randomly assigned calendar or computer training. A standard care control group was used for comparison. Measures of adherence, memory-based activities of daily living (mADLs), and self-efficacy were completed. The calendar training group demonstrated significant improvement in mADLs compared to controls, while the computer training group did not. Calendar training may be more effective in improving mADLs than computerized intervention. However, this study highlights how behavioral trials with fewer than 30–50 participants per arm are likely underpowered, resulting in seemingly null findings.

ObjectiveThis study aims to provide effect size estimates of the impact of two cognitive rehabilitation interventions provided to patients with mild cognitive impairment: computerized brain fitness exercise and memory support system on support partners' outcomes of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and partner burden.MethodsA randomized controlled pilot trial was performed.ResultsAt 6 months, the partners from both treatment groups showed stable to improved depression and anxiety scores, while partners in an untreated control group showed worsening depression and anxiety over 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences on quality of life or burden outcomes in this small pilot trial; however, effect sizes were moderate, suggesting that the sample sizes in this pilot study were not adequate to detect statistical significance.ConclusionEither form of cognitive rehabilitation may help partners' mood or anxiety, compared with providing no treatment. However, effect size estimates related to other partner outcomes (i.e., burden, quality of life) suggest that follow‐up efficacy trials will need sample sizes of at least 30–100 people per group to accurately determine significance. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) currently have few treatment options for combating their memory loss. The Memory Support System (MSS) is a calendar and organization system with accompanying 6-week curriculum designed for individuals with progressive memory impairment. Ability to learn the MSS and its utility were assessed in 20 participants. Participants were significantly more likely to successfully use the calendar system after training. Ninety-five percent were compliant with the MSS at training completion, and 89% continued to be compliant at follow-up. Outcome measures revealed a medium effect size for improvement in functional ability. Subjects further reported improved independence, self-confidence, and mood. This initial examination of the MSS suggests that with appropriate training, individuals with amnestic MCI can and will use a memory notebook system to help compensate for memory loss. These results are encouraging that the MSS may help with the symptoms of memory decline in MCI.