search
Back to results

A Psychosocial Intervention for Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Their Family Caregivers (iCanManage)

Primary Purpose

Colorectal Cancer

Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
An interactive Colorectal Cancer self-Management enhancement smartphone-based psychosocial intervention programme (iCanManage)
Sponsored by
Singapore Cancer Society
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional health services research trial for Colorectal Cancer focused on measuring psychosocial intervention, smartphone-based, patient, colorectal cancer, caregiver, randomised controlled trial

Eligibility Criteria

21 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • The inclusion criteria for patients are:

    1. Aged 21 years old and above;
    2. Diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer;
    3. Scheduled for elective colorectal surgeries;
    4. Able to read and speak English and/or Mandarin;
    5. Have a smartphone with internet access; and
    6. Have one identifiable main family caregiver

The inclusion criteria for caregivers include:

  1. Aged 21 years old and above;
  2. Main family caregiver of the patient
  3. Able to read and speak English and/or Mandarin; and
  4. Have a smartphone with internet access

Exclusion Criteria for both patients and caregivers:

  1. visual or hearing impairments; and/or
  2. cognitive impairments/mental disorders identified in their medical record

Sites / Locations

    Arms of the Study

    Arm 1

    Arm 2

    Arm Type

    Experimental

    No Intervention

    Arm Label

    Intervention group

    Control group

    Arm Description

    Participants in the intervention group will receive an interactive Colorectal Cancer self-Management enhancement smartphone-based psychosocial intervention programme (iCanManage) in addition to routine care provided by the respective hospitals.

    Participants in the control group will receive routine care provided by the respective hospitals . The routine care includes normal consultation with their attending physician, information concerning treatment plans, such as surgical procedures and its associated risks, preoperative preparations and postoperative care, treatment after discharge and/or subsequent adjunct therapy if required.

    Outcomes

    Primary Outcome Measures

    Colorectal cancer patients' self-efficacy
    The level of patient's self-efficacy will be measured by the 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale is a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true, 2 = hardly true, 3 = moderately true, 4 = exactly true). The sum score ranges between 10 and 40 with a higher score indicating more self-efficacy.
    Caregivers' quality of life
    Caregivers' quality of life will be measured by 35-item Caregiver Quality of Life Index Cancer (CQOLC). Each item is scored from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The total possible score is 140, with higher scores representing better quality of life.

    Secondary Outcome Measures

    Patients' anxiety and depression
    Patients' anxiety and depression will be measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale comprises of 14-item self-report scale, 7 items for anxiety and 7 for depression. Each item on the HADS was scored on a four point (0-3) so the possible scores ranged from 0-21 for anxiety and 0-21 for depression. The scores of 8-10 in each scale may be suggestive of borderline risk of anxiety or depression and 11 or higher were indicative of probable 'caseness' of anxiety or depression (Pritchard, 2011; Snaith, 2003).
    Patients' Social support
    The level of patients social support will be measured by the 19-item Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS). The Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS - SSS) measures four aspects of social support including (1) tangible support; (2) affectionate support; (3) positive social interaction and (4) emotional-informational support (Shebourne & Stewart, 1991; Wang, Zheng, He, & Thompson, 2013). Without regarding the source of support, the frequency of support available to each participant was captured through response indications from none-of-the-time (= 1) to all-of-the-time (= 5) on a 5-point scale. Tabulated scores for each dimension are then rescaled to a 0 to 100 range, where higher scores indicate higher support availability (McDowell, 2006).
    Patients' Health-related quality of life
    Patients' health-related quality of life will be measured by the 29-item European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Colorectal cancer specific (EORTC QLQ-CR29). The EORTC QLQ-CR29 has 29 questions comprises of four functional scales and 18 symptoms scales. All the items are scored on a four-point Likert scale (1-4). Raw scores will be linearly transformed to a scale scores ranging from 0 to100 according to EORTC scoring manual (Fayers et al., 2001). A high scale score for functional scale represents a better functioning, while a high score for a symptom scale represents a worse symptom.
    Patients' Satisfaction with care
    Patients' satisfaction with care will be measured by the 1-item 6-point Ordinal Descriptive Scale (ODS) from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied).
    Caregivers' burden
    Caregivers' burden will be measured by the 21-item Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA). The CRA contains subscales of self-esteem, family support, finances, schedule, and health. Each item is scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (score 1) to strongly agree (score 5). The items constituting a particular subscale are averaged to generate subscale scores (ranging from 1 to 5). A higher score on the self-esteem subscale indicates a more positive effect of caregiving, higher scores on the other subscales indicate greater negative effects of caregiving in those domains.
    Caregivers' anxiety and depression
    Caregivers' anxiety and depression will be measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). HADS comprises of 14-item self-report scale, 7 items for anxiety and 7 for depression. Each item on the HADS was scored on a four point (0-3) so the possible scores ranged from 0-21 for anxiety and 0-21 for depression. The scores of 8-10 in each scale may be suggestive of borderline risk of anxiety or depression and 11 or higher were indicative of probable 'caseness' of anxiety or depression (Pritchard, 2011; Snaith, 2003).

    Full Information

    First Posted
    October 15, 2019
    Last Updated
    November 7, 2019
    Sponsor
    Singapore Cancer Society
    Collaborators
    National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore General Hospital
    search

    1. Study Identification

    Unique Protocol Identification Number
    NCT04159363
    Brief Title
    A Psychosocial Intervention for Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Their Family Caregivers
    Acronym
    iCanManage
    Official Title
    The Effectiveness of an Interactive Colorectal Cancer Self-Management Enhancement Smartphone-based Psychosocial Intervention Programme (iCanManage) on Outcomes of Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Their Family Caregivers
    Study Type
    Interventional

    2. Study Status

    Record Verification Date
    November 2019
    Overall Recruitment Status
    Unknown status
    Study Start Date
    February 1, 2020 (Anticipated)
    Primary Completion Date
    January 31, 2021 (Anticipated)
    Study Completion Date
    January 31, 2021 (Anticipated)

    3. Sponsor/Collaborators

    Responsible Party, by Official Title
    Principal Investigator
    Name of the Sponsor
    Singapore Cancer Society
    Collaborators
    National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore General Hospital

    4. Oversight

    Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
    No
    Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
    No
    Data Monitoring Committee
    Yes

    5. Study Description

    Brief Summary
    This study aims to develop a smartphone-based psychosocial intervention for patients with colorectal cancer and their family caregivers and to improve patients' confidence in self-care, psychological well-being, social support, quality of life, and satisfaction with care, as well as caregivers' burden, psychological well-being, and quality of life. The study also aims to explore patients' and their caregivers' perceptions of the intervention and routine care. A multi-centre two-arm experimental study design is used in this study. A total of 100 patient-caregiver dyads will be recruited and randomly allocated to either the control group (receiving routine care alone) or the intervention group (receiving routine care plus the psychosocial intervention). After completed the study, 15 patient-caregiver dyads will be invited for interviews to explore their perceptions on the intervention and/or routine care. This study will generate evidence on the effectiveness of the easily accessible and sustainable smartphone-based psychosocial intervention.
    Detailed Description
    Aims The aims of the study are: (1) To develop an interactive Colorectal Cancer self-Management enhancement smartphone-based psychosocial intervention programme (iCanManage program); (2) To examine the effectiveness of iCanManage for colorectal cancer patients and their caregivers in improving patients' health outcomes including self-efficacy (primary outcome), psychological well-being (anxiety & depression), social support, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and satisfaction with care, as well as caregivers' burden, psychological well-being, and quality of life (QoL) (primary outcome); and (3) To explore patients' and their caregivers' perceptions of iCanManage and routine care. Hypotheses Over 3 months' follow-up, compared to patients in the control group,patients who receive iCanManage in addition to hospital routine care will report significantly: (1) higher levels of self-efficacy, social support, HRQoL and satisfaction with care, and (2) lower levels of anxiety and depression; whilst caregivers will report significantly lower levels of burden, anxiety and depression, and higher level of QoL. Methodology A multi-centre two-arm randomised controlled trial will be conducted at two public hospitals in Singapore. A total of 100 patient-caregiver dyads will be recruited via convenience sampling. Participants (patient-caregiver dyads) will be randomly allocated to either the intervention (receiving iCanManage in addition to hospital routine care) or the control group (receiving only hospital routine care). The aforementioned outcomes of both patients and caregivers will be measured at baseline (start of access to iCanManage), 2-weeks post-surgery (end of access to iCanManage) and 3-months post-surgery. Descriptive statistics, repeated measures analysis of covariance, univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used to analyse the data. At the end of the trial, semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore 30 patients' and 30 caregivers' perceptions on iCanManage and or routine care. The transcribed interview data will be analysed using a thematic analysis. Significance of the study This study will generate evidence on the effectiveness of the easily accessible and sustainable iCanManage. Should the quantitative and qualitative findings support the feasibility and effects of the intervention, it can be adopted by hospital policymakers as added routine care to enhance patients' self-management ability throughout their surgery journey.

    6. Conditions and Keywords

    Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
    Colorectal Cancer
    Keywords
    psychosocial intervention, smartphone-based, patient, colorectal cancer, caregiver, randomised controlled trial

    7. Study Design

    Primary Purpose
    Health Services Research
    Study Phase
    Not Applicable
    Interventional Study Model
    Parallel Assignment
    Masking
    Participant
    Allocation
    Randomized
    Enrollment
    200 (Anticipated)

    8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

    Arm Title
    Intervention group
    Arm Type
    Experimental
    Arm Description
    Participants in the intervention group will receive an interactive Colorectal Cancer self-Management enhancement smartphone-based psychosocial intervention programme (iCanManage) in addition to routine care provided by the respective hospitals.
    Arm Title
    Control group
    Arm Type
    No Intervention
    Arm Description
    Participants in the control group will receive routine care provided by the respective hospitals . The routine care includes normal consultation with their attending physician, information concerning treatment plans, such as surgical procedures and its associated risks, preoperative preparations and postoperative care, treatment after discharge and/or subsequent adjunct therapy if required.
    Intervention Type
    Other
    Intervention Name(s)
    An interactive Colorectal Cancer self-Management enhancement smartphone-based psychosocial intervention programme (iCanManage)
    Intervention Description
    The iCanManage consists of two components: (1a) Existing functions from the BuddyCare mobile application that provide a comprehensive 29 day-by-day perioperative guide for patients who will be undergoing colorectal elective surgery; (1b) a dashboard for healthcare professionals to monitor patients and their caregivers' well-being as well as allow mutual communication; and (2) Newly developed digitalised psychosocial content (e.g., mindfulness-based activities with audio cover, video materials related to positive psychology, patient ambassadors' success stories and relevant psychoeducation) tailored for colorectal cancer patients and caregivers, with the aim of providing them emotional and psychosocial support.
    Primary Outcome Measure Information:
    Title
    Colorectal cancer patients' self-efficacy
    Description
    The level of patient's self-efficacy will be measured by the 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale is a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true, 2 = hardly true, 3 = moderately true, 4 = exactly true). The sum score ranges between 10 and 40 with a higher score indicating more self-efficacy.
    Time Frame
    Patients' self-efficacy will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Title
    Caregivers' quality of life
    Description
    Caregivers' quality of life will be measured by 35-item Caregiver Quality of Life Index Cancer (CQOLC). Each item is scored from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The total possible score is 140, with higher scores representing better quality of life.
    Time Frame
    Caregivers' quality of life will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
    Title
    Patients' anxiety and depression
    Description
    Patients' anxiety and depression will be measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale comprises of 14-item self-report scale, 7 items for anxiety and 7 for depression. Each item on the HADS was scored on a four point (0-3) so the possible scores ranged from 0-21 for anxiety and 0-21 for depression. The scores of 8-10 in each scale may be suggestive of borderline risk of anxiety or depression and 11 or higher were indicative of probable 'caseness' of anxiety or depression (Pritchard, 2011; Snaith, 2003).
    Time Frame
    will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Title
    Patients' Social support
    Description
    The level of patients social support will be measured by the 19-item Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS). The Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS - SSS) measures four aspects of social support including (1) tangible support; (2) affectionate support; (3) positive social interaction and (4) emotional-informational support (Shebourne & Stewart, 1991; Wang, Zheng, He, & Thompson, 2013). Without regarding the source of support, the frequency of support available to each participant was captured through response indications from none-of-the-time (= 1) to all-of-the-time (= 5) on a 5-point scale. Tabulated scores for each dimension are then rescaled to a 0 to 100 range, where higher scores indicate higher support availability (McDowell, 2006).
    Time Frame
    Patients' social support will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Title
    Patients' Health-related quality of life
    Description
    Patients' health-related quality of life will be measured by the 29-item European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - Colorectal cancer specific (EORTC QLQ-CR29). The EORTC QLQ-CR29 has 29 questions comprises of four functional scales and 18 symptoms scales. All the items are scored on a four-point Likert scale (1-4). Raw scores will be linearly transformed to a scale scores ranging from 0 to100 according to EORTC scoring manual (Fayers et al., 2001). A high scale score for functional scale represents a better functioning, while a high score for a symptom scale represents a worse symptom.
    Time Frame
    Patients' health-related quality of life will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Title
    Patients' Satisfaction with care
    Description
    Patients' satisfaction with care will be measured by the 1-item 6-point Ordinal Descriptive Scale (ODS) from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied).
    Time Frame
    Patients' satisfaction with care will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) ,and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Title
    Caregivers' burden
    Description
    Caregivers' burden will be measured by the 21-item Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA). The CRA contains subscales of self-esteem, family support, finances, schedule, and health. Each item is scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (score 1) to strongly agree (score 5). The items constituting a particular subscale are averaged to generate subscale scores (ranging from 1 to 5). A higher score on the self-esteem subscale indicates a more positive effect of caregiving, higher scores on the other subscales indicate greater negative effects of caregiving in those domains.
    Time Frame
    Caregivers' burden will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.
    Title
    Caregivers' anxiety and depression
    Description
    Caregivers' anxiety and depression will be measured by the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). HADS comprises of 14-item self-report scale, 7 items for anxiety and 7 for depression. Each item on the HADS was scored on a four point (0-3) so the possible scores ranged from 0-21 for anxiety and 0-21 for depression. The scores of 8-10 in each scale may be suggestive of borderline risk of anxiety or depression and 11 or higher were indicative of probable 'caseness' of anxiety or depression (Pritchard, 2011; Snaith, 2003).
    Time Frame
    Caregivers' anxiety and depression will be assessed at baseline (around 2 weeks before surgery) and assessing changes between baseline and around 2 weeks after the surgery and 3 months after the surgery.

    10. Eligibility

    Sex
    All
    Minimum Age & Unit of Time
    21 Years
    Accepts Healthy Volunteers
    No
    Eligibility Criteria
    Inclusion Criteria: The inclusion criteria for patients are: Aged 21 years old and above; Diagnosed with primary colorectal cancer; Scheduled for elective colorectal surgeries; Able to read and speak English and/or Mandarin; Have a smartphone with internet access; and Have one identifiable main family caregiver The inclusion criteria for caregivers include: Aged 21 years old and above; Main family caregiver of the patient Able to read and speak English and/or Mandarin; and Have a smartphone with internet access Exclusion Criteria for both patients and caregivers: visual or hearing impairments; and/or cognitive impairments/mental disorders identified in their medical record
    Central Contact Person:
    First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
    Hong-Gu HE, PhD
    Phone
    +6565167448
    Email
    nurhhg@nus.edu.sg
    Overall Study Officials:
    First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
    Hong-Gu HE, PhD
    Organizational Affiliation
    National University of Singapore
    Official's Role
    Principal Investigator

    12. IPD Sharing Statement

    Plan to Share IPD
    No
    IPD Sharing Plan Description
    The individual participant data will only be available for researchers involved in this study.
    Citations:
    PubMed Identifier
    29745417
    Citation
    Al Daken LI, Ahmad MM. The implementation of mindfulness-based interventions and educational interventions to support family caregivers of patients with cancer: A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2018 Jul;54(3):441-452. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12286. Epub 2018 May 10.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    24161637
    Citation
    Ang SG, Chen HC, Siah RJ, He HG, Klainin-Yobas P. Stressors relating to patient psychological health following stoma surgery: an integrated literature review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2013 Nov;40(6):587-94. doi: 10.1188/13.ONF.587-594.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26507369
    Citation
    Badr H, Lipnick D, Diefenbach MA, Posner M, Kotz T, Miles B, Genden E. Development and usability testing of a web-based self-management intervention for oral cancer survivors and their family caregivers. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 Sep;25(5):806-21. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12396. Epub 2015 Oct 27.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    25629218
    Citation
    Badr H, Carmack CL, Diefenbach MA. Psychosocial interventions for patients and caregivers in the age of new communication technologies: opportunities and challenges in cancer care. J Health Commun. 2015;20(3):328-42. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2014.965369. Epub 2015 Jan 28.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Bazaliński, D., Salacinska, I., Wiech, P. & Kozka, M. (2014). Life satisfaction and self-efficacy in patients with stoma. Progress in Health Sciences, 4(2), 22-30.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    15367063
    Citation
    Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B, Hecht J, Minicucci DS, Ory M, Ogedegbe G, Orwig D, Ernst D, Czajkowski S; Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychol. 2004 Sep;23(5):443-51. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.443.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22274687
    Citation
    Bevans M, Sternberg EM. Caregiving burden, stress, and health effects among family caregivers of adult cancer patients. JAMA. 2012 Jan 25;307(4):398-403. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.29.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    19752661
    Citation
    Butler DL. Early postoperative complications following ostomy surgery: a review. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009 Sep-Oct;36(5):513-9; quiz 520-1. doi: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181b35eaa.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22191052
    Citation
    Raingruber B. The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions with cancer patients: an integrative review of the literature (2006-2011). ISRN Nurs. 2011;2011:638218. doi: 10.5402/2011/638218. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    17286625
    Citation
    Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Carlson, L., & Speca, M. (2011). Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery: A step-by-step MBSR Approach to help you cope with treatment & reclaim your life. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    16565618
    Citation
    Carter PA. A brief behavioral sleep intervention for family caregivers of persons with cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2006 Mar-Apr;29(2):95-103. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200603000-00003.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    23962509
    Citation
    Chawla N, Butler EN, Lund J, Warren JL, Harlan LC, Yabroff KR. Patterns of colorectal cancer care in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2013;2013(46):36-61. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt009.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Chenail, R. J. (2011). How to conduct clinical qualitative research on the patient's experience. Qualitative Report, 16(4), 1173-1190.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    18567538
    Citation
    Cotrim H, Pereira G. Impact of colorectal cancer on patient and family: implications for care. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008 Jul;12(3):217-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2007.11.005.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    16139163
    Citation
    Doig GS, Simpson F. Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care. 2005 Jun;20(2):187-91; discussion 191-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.04.005.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22048559
    Citation
    Eaton LH, Doorenbos AZ, Schmitz KL, Carpenter KM, McGregor BA. Establishing treatment fidelity in a web-based behavioral intervention study. Nurs Res. 2011 Nov-Dec;60(6):430-5. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e31823386aa.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    24118428
    Citation
    Fish JA, Ettridge K, Sharplin GR, Hancock B, Knott VE. Mindfulness-based cancer stress management: impact of a mindfulness-based programme on psychological distress and quality of life. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014 May;23(3):413-21. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12136. Epub 2013 Oct 10.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    28596746
    Citation
    Fu F, Zhao H, Tong F, Chi I. A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Interventions to Cancer Caregivers. Front Psychol. 2017 May 23;8:834. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00834. eCollection 2017.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26582649
    Citation
    Gonzalez-Saenz de Tejada M, Bilbao A, Bare M, Briones E, Sarasqueta C, Quintana JM, Escobar A. Association of social support, functional status, and psychological variables with changes in health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer. Psychooncology. 2016 Aug;25(8):891-7. doi: 10.1002/pon.4022. Epub 2015 Nov 18.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    29259774
    Citation
    Grassi L, Spiegel D, Riba M. Advancing psychosocial care in cancer patients. F1000Res. 2017 Dec 4;6:2083. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11902.1. eCollection 2017.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    28822053
    Citation
    Grimmett C, Haviland J, Winter J, Calman L, Din A, Richardson A, Smith PWF, Foster C. Colorectal cancer patient's self-efficacy for managing illness-related problems in the first 2 years after diagnosis, results from the ColoREctal Well-being (CREW) study. J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Oct;11(5):634-642. doi: 10.1007/s11764-017-0636-x. Epub 2017 Aug 19.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    23355273
    Citation
    Gustafson DH, DuBenske LL, Namkoong K, Hawkins R, Chih MY, Atwood AK, Johnson R, Bhattacharya A, Carmack CL, Traynor AM, Campbell TC, Buss MK, Govindan R, Schiller JH, Cleary JF. An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. Cancer. 2013 May 1;119(9):1744-51. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27939. Epub 2013 Jan 25.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    30447170
    Citation
    Hildebrandt C, Mayer H, Koller A. Experiences of patients with colorectal cancer from diagnosis until completion of treatment: A meta-ethnography approach. Psychooncology. 2019 Feb;28(2):219-227. doi: 10.1002/pon.4946. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26161373
    Citation
    Huh JW. Stoma Creation After Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Temporary or Permanent? Ann Coloproctol. 2015 Jun;31(3):82. doi: 10.3393/ac.2015.31.3.82. No abstract available.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    3399889
    Citation
    House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988 Jul 29;241(4865):540-5. doi: 10.1126/science.3399889.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    27189614
    Citation
    Johns SA, Brown LF, Beck-Coon K, Talib TL, Monahan PO, Giesler RB, Tong Y, Wilhelm L, Carpenter JS, Von Ah D, Wagner CD, de Groot M, Schmidt K, Monceski D, Danh M, Alyea JM, Miller KD, Kroenke K. Randomized controlled pilot trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction compared to psychoeducational support for persistently fatigued breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2016 Oct;24(10):4085-96. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3220-4. Epub 2016 May 17.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003), Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10: 144-156. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg016
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    25806882
    Citation
    Kaltenbaugh DJ, Klem ML, Hu L, Turi E, Haines AJ, Hagerty Lingler J. Using Web-based interventions to support caregivers of patients with cancer: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2015 Mar;42(2):156-64. doi: 10.1188/15.ONF.156-164.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26892973
    Citation
    Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Jul;34(7):645-9. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Kaynar, G. O. & Vural, F. (2018). Assessment of the caregiver burden of caregivers of colorectal cancer patients. Turkish Journal of Colorectal Disease, 28, 164-171. DOI: 10.4274/tjcd.26121
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26610573
    Citation
    LeSeure P, Chongkham-Ang S. The Experience of Caregivers Living with Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis. J Pers Med. 2015 Nov 19;5(4):406-39. doi: 10.3390/jpm5040406.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Liao, C. & Qin, Y. (2014). Factors associated with stoma quality of life among stoma patients. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 1(2), 196 - 201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2014.05.007
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Lim, S. H. (2017). Developing and testing the preliminary effects of stoma psychosocial intervention programme on outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with stoma: a mixed methods study. PhD thesis. Singapore: National University of Singapore.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    23759360
    Citation
    Hoon LS, Chi Sally CW, Hong-Gu H. Effect of psychosocial interventions on outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer: a review of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013 Dec;17(6):883-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.05.001. Epub 2013 Jun 4.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    24836957
    Citation
    Lim SH, Chan SW, He HG. Patients' Experiences of Performing Self-care of Stomas in the Initial Postoperative Period. Cancer Nurs. 2015 May-Jun;38(3):185-93. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000158.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Loi, T. T. C. (2016). Developing and testing the effects of a psychoeducation intervention on patients with colorectal cancer: a mixed method study. PhD thesis, Singapore: National University of Singapore.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    29173830
    Citation
    Lu LC, Huang XY, Chen CC. The lived experiences of patients with post-operative rectal cancer who suffer from altered bowel function: A phenomenological study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017 Dec;31:69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.10.004. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
    Results Reference
    background
    Citation
    Machin, D., Campbell, M., Fayers, P., & Pinol, A. (1997). Sample size tables for clinical studies (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    21228314
    Citation
    Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jan 19;103(2):117-28. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq495. Epub 2011 Jan 12. Erratum In: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Apr 20;103(8):699.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    31312555
    Citation
    Mehta R, Sharma K, Potters L, Wernicke AG, Parashar B. Evidence for the Role of Mindfulness in Cancer: Benefits and Techniques. Cureus. 2019 May 9;11(5):e4629. doi: 10.7759/cureus.4629.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22031616
    Citation
    Melnyk M, Casey RG, Black P, Koupparis AJ. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: Time to change practice? Can Urol Assoc J. 2011 Oct;5(5):342-8. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.11002.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    17723988
    Citation
    Mizuno M, Kakuta M, Ono Y, Kato A, Inoue Y. Experiences of Japanese patients with colorectal cancer during the first six months after surgery. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007 Jul;34(4):869-76. doi: 10.1188/07.ONF.869-876.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26530227
    Citation
    Mosher CE, Adams RN, Helft PR, O'Neil BH, Shahda S, Rattray NA, Champion VL. Family caregiving challenges in advanced colorectal cancer: patient and caregiver perspectives. Support Care Cancer. 2016 May;24(5):2017-2024. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-2995-z. Epub 2015 Nov 4.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    30859422
    Citation
    Ni X, Jia D, Chen Y, Wang L, Suo J. Is the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Effective and Safe in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Jul;23(7):1502-1512. doi: 10.1007/s11605-019-04170-8. Epub 2019 Mar 11.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    18772664
    Citation
    Nikoletti S, Young J, Levitt M, King M, Chidlow C, Hollingsworth S. Bowel problems, self-care practices, and information needs of colorectal cancer survivors at 6 to 24 months after sphincter-saving surgery. Cancer Nurs. 2008 Sep-Oct;31(5):389-98. doi: 10.1097/01.NCC.0000305759.04357.1b.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    15599947
    Citation
    Northouse L, Kershaw T, Mood D, Schafenacker A. Effects of a family intervention on the quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psychooncology. 2005 Jun;14(6):478-91. doi: 10.1002/pon.871.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    17999405
    Citation
    Northouse LL, Mood DW, Schafenacker A, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, Pienta KJ, Smith DC, Kershaw T. Randomized clinical trial of a family intervention for prostate cancer patients and their spouses. Cancer. 2007 Dec 15;110(12):2809-18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23114.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    23036312
    Citation
    Ohlsson-Nevo E, Andershed B, Nilsson UG, Anderzen-Carlsson A. Finding a wider horizon: experiences of being a next-of-kin of a person suffering from colorectal cancer as told after having participated in a psychoeducational program. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013 Jun;17(3):324-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.09.001. Epub 2012 Oct 1.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    26643400
    Citation
    Ohlsson-Nevo E, Karlsson J, Nilsson U. Effects of a psycho-educational programme on health-related quality of life in patients treated for colorectal and anal cancer: A feasibility trial. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2016 Apr;21:181-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2015.10.002. Epub 2015 Nov 28.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22472669
    Citation
    Palma E, Simonetti V, Franchelli P, Pavone D, Cicolini G. An observational study of family caregivers' quality of life caring for patients with a stoma. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2012 Mar-Apr;35(2):99-104. doi: 10.1097/SGA.0b013e31824c2326.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22067688
    Citation
    Qian H, Yuan C. Factors associated with self-care self-efficacy among gastric and colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Nurs. 2012 May-Jun;35(3):E22-31. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e31822d7537.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    19695956
    Citation
    Quinten C, Coens C, Mauer M, Comte S, Sprangers MA, Cleeland C, Osoba D, Bjordal K, Bottomley A; EORTC Clinical Groups. Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Sep;10(9):865-71. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70200-1. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    12781933
    Citation
    Rehse B, Pukrop R. Effects of psychosocial interventions on quality of life in adult cancer patients: meta analysis of 37 published controlled outcome studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jun;50(2):179-86. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00149-0.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    20014004
    Citation
    Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    28337821
    Citation
    Schellekens MPJ, van den Hurk DGM, Prins JB, Donders ART, Molema J, Dekhuijzen R, van der Drift MA, Speckens AEM. Mindfulness-based stress reduction added to care as usual for lung cancer patients and/or their partners: A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2017 Dec;26(12):2118-2126. doi: 10.1002/pon.4430. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    11867132
    Citation
    Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002 Feb 16;359(9306):614-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07750-4.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    24726867
    Citation
    Shahi V, Lapid MI, Kung S, Atherton PJ, Sloan JA, Clark MM, Rummans TA. Do age and quality of life of patients with cancer influence quality of life of the caregiver? J Geriatr Oncol. 2014 Jul;5(3):331-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2014.03.003. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    18039249
    Citation
    Simmons KL, Smith JA, Bobb KA, Liles LL. Adjustment to colostomy: stoma acceptance, stoma care self-efficacy and interpersonal relationships. J Adv Nurs. 2007 Dec;60(6):627-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04446.x.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    29363821
    Citation
    Smith F, Ohlen J, Persson LO, Carlsson E. Daily Assessment of Stressful events and Coping in early post-operative recovery after colorectal cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018 Mar;27(2):e12829. doi: 10.1111/ecc.12829. Epub 2018 Jan 24.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22271329
    Citation
    Tamagawa R, Garland S, Vaska M, Carlson LE. Who benefits from psychosocial interventions in oncology? A systematic review of psychological moderators of treatment outcome. J Behav Med. 2012 Dec;35(6):658-73. doi: 10.1007/s10865-012-9398-0. Epub 2012 Jan 22.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    25797725
    Citation
    Thiele RH, Rea KM, Turrentine FE, Friel CM, Hassinger TE, McMurry TL, Goudreau BJ, Umapathi BA, Kron IL, Sawyer RG, Hedrick TL. Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Apr;220(4):430-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.042. Epub 2015 Jan 9. Erratum In: J Am Coll Surg. 2015 May;220(5):986.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    12639592
    Citation
    Thumboo J, Fong KY, Machin D, Chan SP, Soh CH, Leong KH, Feng PH, Thio St, Boey ML. Quality of life in an urban Asian population: the impact of ethnicity and socio-economic status. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Apr;56(8):1761-72. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00171-5.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    31204791
    Citation
    Treanor CJ, Santin O, Prue G, Coleman H, Cardwell CR, O'Halloran P, Donnelly M. Psychosocial interventions for informal caregivers of people living with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 17;6(6):CD009912. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009912.pub2.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    22729992
    Citation
    Waldron EA, Janke EA, Bechtel CF, Ramirez M, Cohen A. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions to improve cancer caregiver quality of life. Psychooncology. 2013 Jun;22(6):1200-7. doi: 10.1002/pon.3118. Epub 2012 Jun 25.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    23334944
    Citation
    Wang W, Zheng X, He HG, Thompson DR. Psychometric testing of the Chinese Mandarin version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey in patients with coronary heart disease in mainland China. Qual Life Res. 2013 Oct;22(8):1965-71. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0345-x. Epub 2013 Jan 19.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    7996652
    Citation
    Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995 Jan 4;273(1):59-65.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    19482512
    Citation
    Worster B, Holmes S. A phenomenological study of the postoperative experiences of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2009 Dec;13(5):315-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2009.04.008. Epub 2009 May 30.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    17510581
    Citation
    Wu HK, Chau JP, Twinn S. Self-efficacy and quality of life among stoma patients in Hong Kong. Cancer Nurs. 2007 May-Jun;30(3):186-93. doi: 10.1097/01.NCC.0000270704.34296.86.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    19731345
    Citation
    Yabroff KR, Kim Y. Time costs associated with informal caregiving for cancer survivors. Cancer. 2009 Sep 15;115(18 Suppl):4362-73. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24588.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    23575408
    Citation
    Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, Zhang XD, Chen BC, Yu Z. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013 May;56(5):667-78. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182812842.
    Results Reference
    background
    PubMed Identifier
    34878991
    Citation
    Wan SW, Chong CS, Toh EL, Lim SH, Loi CT, Lew YFH, Chua MCH, Jee XP, Liu G, Zhu L, Pikkarainen M, He HG. A Theory-Based, Multidisciplinary Approach to Cocreate a Patient-Centric Digital Solution to Enhance Perioperative Health Outcomes Among Colorectal Cancer Patients and Their Family Caregivers: Development and Evaluation Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Dec 7;23(12):e31917. doi: 10.2196/31917.
    Results Reference
    derived
    Links:
    URL
    https://www.aana.com/practice/clinical-practice-resources/enhanced-recovery-after-surgery
    Description
    Enhanced Recovery after Surgery
    URL
    https://www.nrdo.gov.sg/docs/librariesprovider3/default-document-library/cancertrends_7312_web128e09a5c9d76bafab5aff000014cdee.pdf?sfvrsn=0
    Description
    Singapore Cancer Registry. Cancer Incidence and Mortality 2003 - 2012 and Selected Trends 1973-2012 In Singapore
    URL
    https://www.who.int/publications-detail/cancer-control-diagnosis-and-treatment
    Description
    World Health Organization (WHO). Cancer control: diagnosis and treatment.

    Learn more about this trial

    A Psychosocial Intervention for Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Their Family Caregivers

    We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs