Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28698999›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2017

Long-term effectiveness and moderators of a web-based tailored intervention for cancer survivors on social and emotional functioning, depression, and fatigue: randomized controlled trial.

Roy A Willems, Ilse Mesters, Lilian Lechner, Iris M Kanera, Catherine A W Bolman

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Health information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Effects of Internet-based psycho-educational interventions on mental health and quality of life among cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roy A WillemsFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands. roy.willems@ou.nl.
Ilse MestersCAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P. O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lilian LechnerFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Iris M KaneraFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Catherine A W BolmanFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Open University of the Netherlands · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe web-based computer-tailored Kanker Nazorg Wijzer (Cancer Aftercare Guide) supports cancer survivors with psychosocial issues during cancer recovery. The current study investigates whether the 6-month effects in increasing emotional and social functioning and reducing depression and fatigue hold at 12 months from baseline. Moreover, it explores whether patient characteristics moderate the 6- and 12-month intervention effectiveness.

methodsCancer survivors from 21 Dutch hospitals (November 2013-June 2014) were randomized to an intervention (n = 231) or a wait-list control group (n = 231). Intervention effects on emotional and social functioning (EORTC QLQ-C30), depression (HADS), and fatigue (CIS) were evaluated through multilevel linear regression analyses.

resultsAt 12 months from baseline, the intervention group no longer differed from the control group in emotional and social functioning, depression, and fatigue. Moderator analyses indicated that, at 6 months, the intervention was effective in improving social functioning for men (d = 0.34), reducing fatigue for participants ≤56 years (d = 0.44), and reducing depression for participants who received chemotherapy (d = 0.36). At 12 months, participants with a medium educational level reported higher social functioning (d = 0.19), while participants with a low educational level reported lower social functioning (d = 0.22) than participants with a similar educational level in the control group.

conclusionsThe intervention gave cancer patients a head start to psychological recovery after the end of cancer treatment. The control group caught up in the long run. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The Cancer Aftercare Guide expedited recovery after cancer treatment. Being a low intensity, easy accessible, and relatively low cost intervention, it could serve as a relevant step in recovery and stepped care.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsDepressionEmotionsFatigueFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQuality of LifeComputer tailoringeHealthPsycho-oncologyRCTSelf-managementSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID28698999
PMCPMC5671537
OpenAlexW2735148619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.