Attrition and attendance in group therapy for university students: An examination of predictors across time

The clinical effectiveness of the Mind/Body Program for Infertility on wellbeing and assisted reproduction outcomes: a randomized controlled trial in search for active ingredients

STUDY QUESTION

Does the Mind/Body Program for Infertility (MBPI) perform better, due to certain distinctive elements, than a partly matched support group in improving the wellbeing and medically assisted reproduction (MAR) outcomes of women with elevated distress levels in a clinical setting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

While robust enhancements occurred in the wellbeing overall, the cognitive behavioural and formalized stress management elements of the MBPI allowed a significantly stronger improvement in trait anxiety, but not in other mental health and MAR outcomes, compared with a support group.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Mind-body psychological programmes adjacent to MAR have been found to improve women's mental states and possibly increase chances of pregnancy. However, not enough is known about the programme's effectiveness among patients with elevated distress levels in routine clinical settings, nor is it clear which of its particular ingredients are specifically effective.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A pre-post design, single-centre, randomized controlled trial was performed between December 2019 and October 2022 (start and end of recruitment, respectively). The sample size (n = 168) was calculated to detect superiority of the MBPI in improving fertility-related quality of life. Randomization was computer-based, with random numbers concealing identities of patients until after allocation.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The trial was conducted at a large university teaching hospital. A total of 168 patients were randomly assigned to the mind-body (MBPI) group (n = 84) and the fertility support (FS) control group (n = 84). Patients received a 10-week, 135-min/week group intervention, with the FS group following the same format as the MBPI group, but with a less restricted and systematic content, and without the presumed effective factors. The number of patients analysed was n = 74 (MBPI) and n = 68 (FS) for post-intervention psychological outcomes, and n = 54 (MBPI) and n = 56 (FS) for pregnancy outcomes at a 30-month follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Significant improvements occurred in both groups in all psychological domains (adjusted P < 0.001), except for treatment-related quality of life. Linear mixed-model regression analysis did not reveal significantly greater pre-post improvements in the MBPI group than in the FS group in fertility-related quality of life (difference in differences (DD) = 4.11 [0.42, 7.80], d = 0.32, adjusted P = 0.124), treatment-related quality of life (DD = -3.08 [-7.72, 1.55], d = -0.20, adjusted P = 0.582), infertility-specific stress (DD = -2.54 [-4.68, 0.41], d = -0.36, adjusted P = 0.105), depression (DD = -1.16 [3.61, 1.29], d = -0.13, adjusted P = 0.708), and general stress (DD = -0.62 [-1.91, 0.68], d = -0.13, adjusted P = 0.708), but it did show a significantly larger improvement in trait anxiety (DD = -3.60 [-6.16, -1.04], d = -0.32, adjusted P = 0.042). Logistic regression showed no group effect on MAR pregnancies, spontaneous pregnancies, or live births.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The follow-up only covered MAR-related medical outcomes and no psychological variables, and their rates were not equal in the two groups. Biological factors other than age, aetiology, and duration of infertility may have confounded the study results. Loss to follow-up was between 5% and 10%, which may have led to some bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The psychologically and medically heterogeneous sample, the normal clinical setting and the low attrition rate all raise the external validity and generalizability of our study. The MBPI works not only in controlled conditions, but also in routine MAR practice, where it can be introduced as a cost-effective, low-intensity psychological intervention, within the framework of stepped care. More studies are needed to further identify its active ingredients.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04151485.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

5 November 2019.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

15 December 2019.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing a Community-Based Psychosocial Support Intervention Conducted In-Person and Remotely: A Qualitative Study in Quibdó, Colombia

Community-based psychosocial support group (CB-PSS) interventions using task-shifting approaches are well suited to provide culturally appropriate services in low- and middle-income countries. However, contextual barriers and facilitators must be considered to tailor interventions effectively, particularly considering the challenges introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the barriers, facilitators, and psychosocial changes associated with implementing a CB-PSS group intervention delivered by local lay providers to conflict-affected adults in Quibdó, Colombia, using both in-person and remote modalities. Data were analyzed from 25 individual interviews with participants and a focus group discussion involving staff members, including 7 community psychosocial agent facilitators and 2 mental health professional supervisors. The analysis used a thematic approach grounded in a descriptive phenomenology to explore the lived experiences of participants and staff members during implementation. Participant attendance in the in-person modality was compromised by factors such as competing work and family responsibilities and disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants in the remote modality faced challenges concerning unstable Internet connectivity, recurrent power outages caused by heavy rain, distractions, interruptions, and threats to confidentiality by family and coworkers. Despite these challenges, data revealed key contextual facilitators, including the community-based knowledge of facilitators and integration of traditional practices, such as the comadreo (informal talks and gatherings). Respondents shared that the CB-PSS groups promoted stronger community relationships and created opportunities for participants to exchange peer support, practice leadership skills, develop problem-solving skills based on peers' experiences, and enhance emotional regulation skills. Differences and similarities across in-person and remote modalities are discussed, as are key considerations for practitioners and policymakers.

Use of Immersive Virtual Reality Spaces to Engage Adolescent and Young Adult Patients With Cancer in Therapist-Guided Support Groups: Protocol for a Pre-Post Study

BACKGROUND

For adolescents and young adults, a cancer diagnoses can magnify feelings of social isolation at an inherently vulnerable developmental stage. Prior studies have highlighted the importance of peer groups during cancer treatment. Support groups help foster connection and resilience, but patients find in-person participation difficult due to a variety of factors. Additionally, physical changes brought on by cancer makes these patients hesitant to meet in person. The COVID-19 pandemic magnified these difficulties. Virtual reality (VR) allows for the creation of a therapist-curated, computer-generated social space that potentially enables support groups for this population.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol describes a pilot study examining the efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of a social VR support group intervention for adolescent and young adult patients with cancer.

METHODS

We approached 20 participants aged 17-20 years, and 16 agreed to participate. Moreover, 1 participant dropped out due to hospitalization. Participants attended virtual, professionally facilitated support groups using Meta Quest VR headsets. The groups consisted of 4 participants and 1 facilitator, amounting to a total of 22 individual sessions. Each session lasted 45-60 minutes and took place weekly for 4-6 weeks. The primary aim of this study was to collect quantitative and qualitative data on the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Feasibility was measured through session participation rates and overall retention rates. The acceptability of the intervention was explored through brief in-person interviews with participants at the end of the final intervention session. The secondary aim of this study was to collect data on the preliminary efficacy of the intervention in decreasing symptoms of participant depression and anxiety and increasing positive affect and resiliency.

RESULTS

In total, 15 patients aged 17-20 years participated in 22 sessions between November 5, 2019, and July 8, 2021. The median age was 19 (IQR 17-20) years. Overall, 10 (62%) participants identified as male, 5 (31%) as female, and 1 (6%) as transgender female. Furthermore, 5 (31%) participants identified as Hispanic, 1 (6%) identified as non-Hispanic Asian, 3 (19%) identified as non-Hispanic Black, 6 (38%) identified as non-Hispanic White, and 1 (6%) identified as other race or ethnicity. Hematologic malignancies or bone marrow failure was the most common diagnosis (8/16, 50%). The mean attendance rate was 72.8% (SD 25.7%) and retention was 86.7% (SD 0.35%). Moreover, 45% (10/22) of sessions had to be postponed by a week or more due to unexpected participant scheduling issues.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of VR to deliver psychosocial support for adolescents and young adults with cancer may reduce common barriers associated with attending in-person peer support groups while improving quality-of-life measures. The data from this study will inform future studies focused on conducting VR support groups in other rare disease populations, including older adults with cancer.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/48761.