Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28645985›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an interactive web-based intervention: CancerCope.

Suzanne K Chambers, Lee Ritterband, Frances Thorndike, Lisa Nielsen, Joanne F Aitken, Samantha Clutton, Paul Scuffham, Philippa Youl, Bronwyn Morris, Peter Baade and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Suzanne K ChambersMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Lee RitterbandUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Frances ThorndikeUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Lisa NielsenCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Joanne F AitkenMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Samantha CluttonCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Paul ScuffhamSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Australia.
Philippa YoulCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Bronwyn MorrisMenzies School of Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
Peter BaadeCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Jeffrey DunnMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 35% of patients with cancer experience clinically significant distress, and unmet psychological supportive care needs are prevalent. This study describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based psychological intervention for distressed patients with cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In phase I, the intervention was developed on an interactive web platform and pilot tested for acceptability using a qualitative methodology with 21 patients with cancer. Phase II is an RCT underway with patients with or at risk of elevated psychological distress comparing: (1) static patient education website with (2) individualised web-delivered cognitive behavioural intervention (CancerCope). Participants were recruited through the Queensland Cancer Registry and Cancer Council Helpline and met the following inclusion criteria: (1) recently diagnosed with cancer; (2) able to read and speak English; (3) no previous history of head injury, dementia or psychiatric illness; (4) no other concurrent cancer; (5) phone and internet access; (5) scored ≥4 on the Distress Thermometer. Participants are assessed at four time points: baseline/recruitment and 2, 6 and 12 months after recruitment and intervention commencement. Of the 163 participants recruited, 50% met caseness for distress. The area of highest unmet supportive care needs were psychological followed by physical and daily living needs. Primary outcomes are psychological and cancer-specific distress and unmet psychological supportive care needs. Secondary outcomes are positive adjustment, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval: PSY/70/13/HREC) and the Metro South Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/13/QPAH/601). All participants provide informed consent prior to taking part in the study. Once completed, this study will provide recommendations about the efficacy of web-based cognitive behavioural interventions to facilitate better psychosocial adjustment for people with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR (ACTRN12613001026718).

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandInternetAdaptation, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultAgedCognitive Behavioral TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQuality of LifeQueenslandmental healthoncologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID28645985
PMCPMC5541614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.