A tailored, supportive care intervention using systematic assessment designed for people with inoperable lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial
Version of Record online: 4 JUN 2013
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume 22, Issue 11, pages 2445–2453, November 2013
How to Cite
Schofield, P., Ugalde, A., Gough, K., Reece, J., Krishnasamy, M., Carey, M., Ball, D. and Aranda, S. (2013), A tailored, supportive care intervention using systematic assessment designed for people with inoperable lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology, 22: 2445–2453. doi: 10.1002/pon.3306
- Issue online: 24 OCT 2013
- Version of Record online: 4 JUN 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 22 APR 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 27 MAR 2013
- Manuscript Received: 12 JUL 2012
- National Health and Medical Research Council. Grant Number: 310679
- lung cancer;
- unmet needs;
- quality of life
People with inoperable lung cancer experience higher levels of distress, more unmet needs and symptoms than other cancer patients. There is an urgent need to test innovative approaches to improve psychosocial and symptom outcomes in this group. This study tested the hypothesis that a tailored, multidisciplinary supportive care programme based on systematic needs assessment would reduce perceived unmet needs and distress and improve quality of life.
A randomised controlled trial design was used. The tailored intervention comprised two sessions at treatment commencement and completion. Sessions included a self-completed needs assessment, active listening, self-care education and communication of unmet psychosocial and symptom needs to the multidisciplinary team for management and referral. Outcomes were assessed with the Needs Assessment for Advanced Lung Cancer Patients, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Distress Thermometer and European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Q-C30 V2.0.
One hundred and eight patients with a diagnosis of inoperable lung or pleural cancer (including mesothelioma) were recruited from a specialist facility before the trial closed prematurely (original target 200). None of the primary contrasts of interest were significant (all p > 0.10), although change score analysis indicated a relative benefit from the intervention for unmet symptom needs at 8 and 12 weeks post-assessment (effect size = 0.55 and 0.40, respectively).
Although a novel approach, the hypothesis that the intervention would benefit perceived unmet needs, psychological morbidity, distress and health-related quality of life was not supported overall. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.