Published in:
01-08-2020 | Breast Cancer
A telephone-based education and support intervention for Rural Breast Cancer Survivors: a randomized controlled trial comparing two implementation strategies in rural Florida
Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Issue 4/2020
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To compare two implementation telephone-based strategies of an evidence-based educational and support intervention to Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) in which education was delivered early or after the support component.
Methods
Florida RBCS participated in a 12-month randomized clinical trial (RCT) with two arms: Early Education and Support (EE-S) and Support and Delayed Education (S-DE). Arms differed in the timing of 6 support and 3 education sessions. Main outcome was quality of life (QOL, SF-36 physical and mental composite scores [PCS, MCS]). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D), mood (Profile of Mood States, POMS), and social support (Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, MOS-SSS). Outcomes were analyzed longitudinally using repeated measures models fitted with linear mixed methods.
Results
Of 432 RBCS (mean 25.6 months from diagnosis), about 48% were 65+, 73% married/partnered, and 28% with ≤high school education. There were no differences between EE-S and S-DE in demographics or outcomes at baseline (mean (standard deviation): SF-36 PCS, 44.88 (10.6) vs. 45.08 (10.6); MCS, 49.45 (11.1) vs. 48.1 (11.9); CES-D, 10.11 (9.8) vs. 10.86 (10.5); POMS-SF, 23.95 (38.6) vs. 26.35 (38.8); MOS-SSS, 79.2 (21.2) vs. 78.66 (21.2)) or over time. One exception was slightly worse mean scores at month 9 in MCS (Cohen’s d, − 0.22; 95% CI, − 0.38, − 0.06) and POMS (Cohen’s d, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07, 0.39) for EE-S vs. S-DE.
Conclusions
The implementation strategies were equivalent.
Implications for Cancer Survivors
Enhancing support may be considered before delivering not-in-person interventions to RBCS.