The development and evaluation of a web-based complex intervention: the Caring for Couples Coping with Colorectal Cancer “4Cs: CRC” program

A couple-based unmet supportive care needs intervention for colorectal cancer couples: A preliminary feasibility study

PURPOSE

To support colorectal cancer couples cope with cancer, we developed a couple-based unmet supportive care needs intervention program guided by the Supportive Care Needs Framework and examined the feasibility, acceptability, and initial effects of the unmet supportive care needs program.

METHODS

The design of a pre-and post-intervention study was conducted among Chinese colorectal cancer couples. The intervention was delivered in five sessions through in-person and telephone interventions combined. To measure program feasibility through recruitment and retention rates, and to test program acceptability through quantitative and qualitative post-intervention program assessments. The complete data (N = 20 pairs) were used to calculate effect sizes to assess the initial intervention effect.

RESULTS

There was evidence of the feasibility of the intervention program in terms of recruitment (66.7%) and retention (83.3%) rates. Participants' satisfaction with the program also attested to its acceptability. The intervention (Cohen's = 0.15-0.56) had a small-moderate effect size in improving unmet supportive care needs and most cancer-adapted outcomes for colorectal cancer couples, validating the initial effect of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

The unmet supportive care needs program is feasible, acceptable, and preliminarily effective in supporting Chinese colorectal cancer couples to improve unmet supportive care needs and cancer adaptability, as provided by this study.

Evidence of validity of the Brazilian version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory - Brief Version

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the validity evidence of the Brazilian version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory - Brief Version.

METHOD

Methodological study, conducted between November and December 2021, with 140 patients undergoing hospital cancer treatment in João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil. Psychometric analyses were performed in the adapted version, using exploratory factor analysis and correlation with correlated constructs.

RESULTS

A two-factor and 10-item model was evidenced. The cumulative variance explained about 61% the shared variance of the items. Satisfactory values were observed for the factors in the analyses of composite reliability (0.89 and 0.91, respectively), internal consistency (0.86 and 0.91, respectively) and ORION (0.89 and 0.85, respectively). The expected correlations of self-efficacy with quality of life (convergent) and with anxiety and depression (divergent) were evident.

CONCLUSION

The Brazilian version of the instrument showed evidence of validity, being considered reliable to assess the self-efficacy of patients undergoing cancer treatment.

A couple-based dyadic coping intervention for couples coping with colorectal cancer: A pilot feasibility study

PURPOSE

Compared to individual coping, dyadic coping has significant impact on cancer adaptation in cancer couples. Few intervention studies have focused on dyadic coping in colorectal cancer couples. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a Systemic Transactional Model-guided, couples-based dyadic coping intervention program for colorectal cancer couples.

METHODS

A pre-/post-test single-group pilot study was conducted among Chinese colorectal cancer couples. Couples received six intervention sessions delivered by researchers via face-to-face or telephone. Recruitment and retention rates were calculated to assess program feasibility. Quantitative and qualitative post-intervention program evaluation were evaluated to assess acceptability. Additionally, effect sizes were calculated using Dyadic Coping Inventory, Dyadic Adjustments Scale, Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form, Benefit-Finding Scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess preliminary program efficacy.

RESULTS

Of the 31 eligible couples approached, 21 dyads completed the baseline questionnaire, with 16 dyads completing the intervention and post-intervention assessments. Recruitment (67.7%) and retention (76.2%) rates supported the feasibility of the intervention program. Program acceptability was supported by participant satisfaction with the program. The intervention had small-to-medium effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.19-0.48) in improving dyadic coping and most cancer adaptation outcomes for both patients and their spousal caregivers, validating the preliminary efficacy of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

The couples-based dyadic coping intervention is feasible, acceptable, and effective for improving dyadic coping levels and cancer adaptation in colorectal cancer couples. Further examination of this intervention program in a large-scale randomized controlled trial is required.