Hope-enhancement workshops in the SWOG Cancer Research Network: Feasibility of an online intervention

210

Background: Research shows that healthcare professionals’ personal hopefulness is associated with burnout and life satisfaction, highlighting the value of hope-enhancement interventions. Feldman and Dreher developed a single-session hope intervention, but this has been used rarely with oncology professionals, and only in in-person format (Shah, Ferguson, Corn et al.). Given SWOG Cancer Research Network’s commitment to assessing hope-enhancement approaches and the need for online interventions given COVID-19, we report a feasibility study of a virtual hope workshop in SWOG members. Methods: The workshop was a single 2-hour session delivered live via Zoom to 6-8 participants at a time. The workshop comprises 3 components: A brief lecture on hope and two exercises—a “hope mapping” exercise (aided by a smartphone app created for the workshop) and a hope visualization exercise—both designed to build hope for a life goal of each participant’s choosing. 29 SWOG members participated. A link to post-workshop measures was sent to participants, which they were given a week to complete. Measures included Thanarajasingamet al’s 5-item Was-it-Worth-it (WIWI) measure; Kirkpatrick’s 4-item Training Evaluation Model (TEM; reaction, learning, behavior, results); and an item assessing the degree to which participants believe concepts from the workshop should be integrated into SWOG studies. Results: In all, 25 participants (86%) completed measures. Participants were physicians (n = 8), nurses (n = 4), patient advocates (n = 3), research staff (n = 3), and others (n = 7); mostly female (n = 17), mostly white (n = 18), with a mean age of 55.5 (SD = 13.95). Results for the WIWI items are as follows: “Was it worthwhile to participate in the Hope Workshop?” (23 Yes, 2 No/Undecided/Missing Answer); “If you had to do over, would you participate in the Hope Workshop again?” (22 Yes, 3 No/Undecided/Missing Answer); “Would you recommend participating in the Hope Workshop to others?” (22 Yes, 3 No/Undecided/Missing Answer). Two additional items on the WIWI asked participants to rate on a 3-point scale the degree to which they believe their quality of life had increased due to the workshop (M = 2.52, SD =.51) and their overall experience in the workshop (M = 2.70, SD =.64). Ratings for Kirkpatrick’s TEM items likewise were high, ranging from 6.91 (SD = 1.31) to 7.70 (SD =.70) on an 8-point scale. Finally, participants gave a mean rating of 4.44 (SD =.59) on a 5-point scale to the item “To what degree do you believe it may be useful to integrate concepts from this workshop into SWOG trials/studies?” Conclusions: It is feasible to implement hope-enhancement workshops in an online platform that includes a smartphone app. Data obtained from two validated tools (WIWI instrument and Kirkpatrick’s TEM) attest to an array of positive outcomes. Participants also overwhelmingly advocated integrating hope concepts into SWOG’s research.

Piloting workshops to enhance hope among patients with advanced breast cancer and oncologists

137

Background: Hope is a modifiable entity that can be separated from cancer outcome. Increasing hopefulness in patients with advanced breast cancer and oncologists may be of intrinsic value. The feasibility and efficacy of a short intervention to increase hopefulness in these groups are unknown. Methods: We enrolled eligible participants at 2 medical centers into 2 cohorts- 1 for patients with advanced breast cancer and 1 for oncologists. The intervention, a half-day hope enhancement workshop (HEW), was conducted in groups of 10-15 participants within each cohort. Participants completed evaluations including the Adult Hope Scale (AHS) and Herth Hope Index (HHI) pre-workshop, post-workshop, and at 3 months. Mean scores were compared across time points within each cohort using paired t-tests. Results: Ten out of 13 consented patients (76.9%) and all 26 consented physicians (100%) participated in the HEW, meeting our feasibility threshold. In patients, the mean AHS score increased significantly from 50.60 (SD 4.88) pre-workshop to 56.50 (SD 4.74) post-workshop (t = 3.99, p = 0.003); the mean HHI score also increased but this trend was not significant. In oncologists, the increases in mean AHS and HHI scores post-workshop were smaller and not significant. A summary is shown in the table. Post-workshop, patients and physicians were inclined to apply what they learned. However, at 3 months, less than half of participants responded to the evaluation. Mean AHS and HHI scores in patients fell back to baseline values. Conclusions: A short intervention to enhance hope was feasible and associated with increased hopefulness in patients, which was not maintained. Next steps for patients include “maintenance hope therapy” with earlier follow-up and more sustained contact post-workshop. Among oncologists, we hypothesize that for those not grappling with poor prognoses, reframing hope may be less effective, and they may feel less urgency to augment their hopefulness. [Table: see text]