The next generation of collaborative care: The design of a novel web-based stepped collaborative care intervention delivered via telemedicine for people diagnosed with cancer

Patient, family caregiver, and economic outcomes of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention in the oncology setting in the USA (CARES): a randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The current standard of care of screening and referring patients for treatment for symptoms, such as depression, pain, and fatigue, is not effective. This trial aimed to test the efficacy of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention versus standard of care for patients with cancer and at least one of the following symptoms: depression, pain, or fatigue.

METHODS

This randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial was conducted in 29 oncology outpatient clinics associated with the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center in the USA. Patients (aged ≥21 years) with any cancer type and clinical levels of depression, pain, or fatigue (or all of these) were eligible. Eligible family caregivers were aged 21 years or older and providing care to a patient diagnosed with cancer who consented for this study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to stepped collaborative care or standard of care using a central, permuted block design (sizes of 2, 4, and 6) stratified by sex and prognostic status. The biostatistician, oncologists, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Stepped collaborative care was once-weekly cognitive behavioural therapy for 50-60 min from a care coordinator via telemedicine (eg, telephone or videoconferencing). Pharmacotherapy for symptoms might be initiated or changed if recommended by the treatment team or preferred by the patient. Standard of care was screening and referral to a health-care provider for treatment of symptoms. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life in patients at 6 months. Maintenance of the treatment benefits was assessed at 12 months. Participants included in the primary analysis were per intention to treat, which included patients missing one or both follow-up assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939755).

FINDINGS

Between Dec 5, 2016, and April 8, 2021, 459 patients and 190 family caregivers were enrolled. 222 patients were assigned to standard of care and 237 to stepped collaborative care. Of 459 patients, 201 (44%) were male and 258 (56%) were female. Patients in the stepped collaborative care group had a greater 0-6-month improvement in health-related quality of life than patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·013, effect size 0·09). Health-related quality of life was maintained for the stepped collaborative care group (p=0·74, effect size 0·01). Patients in the stepped collaborative care group had greater 0-6-month improvements than the standard-of-care group in emotional (p=0·012), functional (p=0·042), and physical (p=0·033) wellbeing. No adverse events were reported by patients in either group and deaths were considered unrelated to the study.

INTERPRETATION

An integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention, compared with the current standard of care, is recommended to improve health-related quality of life. The findings of this study will advance the implementation of guideline concordant care (screening and treatment) and has the potential to shift the practice of screening and treatment paradigm nationwide, improving outcomes for patients diagnosed with cancer.

FUNDING

US National Cancer Institute.

Collaborative depression care sensitive to the needs of underserved patients with cancer: Feasibility, acceptability and outcomes

PURPOSE

A single-arm trial evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of COPE-D, a collaborative care intervention for underserved cancer patients with depression.

METHODS

Bilingual (Spanish and English) care managers provided counseling and/or medication management in consultation with physicians. Outcomes were treatment improvement (≥ 5-point reduction in PHQ-9), treatment response (≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9), suicidal ideation resolution, and changes in depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-2), sleep disturbance (PSQI), global mental and physical health (PROMIS), social isolation (PROMIS), and qualitative feedback.

RESULTS

193 patients consented to participate. 165 initiated and 141 completed treatment, with 65% and 56% achieving treatment improvement and response, respectively. Outcomes did not differ by ethnicity (31% Hispanic), cancer stage (71% stages III-IV), income, or education. Suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and social isolation also improved. Qualitative feedback was largely positive.

CONCLUSION

COPE-D improved depression and quality of life among underserved patients, with acceptable retention rates.

Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management Delivered by a Virtual Human, Teletherapy, and an E-Manual on Psychological and Physiological Outcomes in Adult Women: An Experimental Test

Technology may expand the reach of stress management to broader populations. However, issues with engagement can reduce intervention effectiveness. Technologies with highly social interfaces, such as virtual humans (VH), may offer advantages in this space. However, it is unclear how VH compare to telehealth and e-manuals at delivering psychological interventions. This experiment compared the effects of single laboratory session of Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management (CBSM) delivered by a VH (VH-CBSM), human telehealth (T-CBSM), and an e-manual (E-CBSM) on psychological and physiological outcomes in a community sample of stressed adult women. A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel, mixed design was conducted. Adult women (M age =43.21, SD = 10.70) who self-identified as stressed were randomly allocated to VH-CBSM, T-CBSM, or E-CBSM involving one 90 min session and homework. Perceived stress, stress management skills, negative affect, optimism, relaxation, and physiological stress were measured. Mixed factorial ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction investigated main and interaction effects of time and condition. Participants’ data (N = 38) were analysed (12 = VH-CBSM; 12 = T-CBSM; 14 = E-CBSM). Each condition significantly improved stress, negative affect, optimism, relaxation, and physiological stress over time with large effect sizes. No significant differences were found between conditions on outcomes. Overall, all three technologies showed promise for remotely delivering CBSM in a controlled setting. The findings suggest feasibility of the VH-CBSM delivery approach and support conducting a fully powered RCT to examine its effectiveness when delivering a full 10-week CBSM intervention.

Effectiveness and moderators of cancer patient-caregiver dyad interventions in improving psychological distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

As patients and family caregivers are increasingly viewed as a dyadic whole, growing studies have emerged that identify ways to improve the two parties’ emotional distress. However, the specific effectiveness, quality, and optimal intervention details of these studies are unclear. Our objective is to synthesize the effectiveness of existing dyadic interventions for improving the psychological distress of cancer patient-caregiver dyads and identify potential moderators that influence intervention effectiveness.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase, and Clinical Trials were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials from inception until June 2021. Two reviewers performed the process independently. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment. We calculated effect sizes (Hedges’ adjusted g) by standard mean difference. Potential moderators influencing the intervention effects were explored.

Results

We included 28 articles, of which 12 were available for meta-analysis. In total, 4784 participants were included, who were primarily middle-aged (M ​= ​58 years old), with the highest proportion reporting a diagnosis of “mixed cancer” (30%). Patients’ anxiety (g ​= ​−0.31; 95% CI: ​−0.51 to −0.12; P ​= ​0.001; I² ​= ​17%) and cancer-related distress (g ​= ​−0.32; 95% CI: ​−0.46 to −0.18; P ​< ​0.0001; I² ​= ​0%) were statistically significantly improved from baseline to post-intervention. Interventionist, delivery type, duration, and frequency were potential moderators for psychosocial interventions on negative emotions.

Conclusions

Face-to-face, relatively shorter interventions led by psychologists in moderator analysis seem to have better performance. Cancer dyad-based interventions were efficacious in improving the emotional distress of both parties in the dyad, but the effect was more apparent in patients than in family caregivers. However, the long-term effects were modest for both groups.