Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2019
Stepped care targeting psychological distress in head and neck cancer and lung cancer patients: which groups specifically benefit? Secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of patient education in improving quality of life, fatigue and anxiety in people diagnosed with lung cancer: systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Stepped-care models for cancer symptom management: a systematic review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Three-year trajectories and associated factors of fear of cancer recurrence in newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients: a longitudinal study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Perioperative anxiety and depression predict long-term survival after neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- Patient Satisfaction and Supportive Care Pathways in a German Head and Neck Tumor Center: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- An eHealth ecosystem for stepped and early psychosocial care in advanced lung cancer: Rationale and protocol for a randomized control trial.Internet interventions · 2023Article
- Study protocol for the evaluation of Fear-Less: a stepped-care program for fear of cancer recurrence in survivors with early-stage disease.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Article
- Effect of Stepped Care on Sexual Interest and Enjoyment in Distressed Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Sexual medicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility and Acceptability ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStepped care (SC), consisting of watchful waiting, guided self-help, problem-solving therapy, and psychotherapy/medication is, compared to care-as-usual (CAU), effective in improving psychological distress. This study presents secondary analyses on subgroups of patients who might specifically benefit from watchful waiting, guided self-help, or the entire SC program.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, head and neck and lung cancer patients with distress (n = 156) were randomized to SC or CAU. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate baseline factors associated with recovery after watchful waiting and guided self-help. Potential moderators of the effectiveness of SC compared to CAU were investigated using linear mixed models.
resultsPatients without a psychiatric disorder, with better psychological outcomes (HADS: all scales) and better health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (EORTC QLQ-C30/H&N35: global QOL, all functioning, and several symptom domains) were more likely to recover after watchful waiting. Patients with better scores on distress, emotional functioning, and dyspnea were more likely to recover after guided self-help. Sex, time since treatment, anxiety or depressive disorder diagnosis, symptoms of anxiety, symptoms of depression, speech problems, and feeling ill at baseline moderated the efficacy of SC compared to CAU.
conclusionsPatients with distress but who are relatively doing well otherwise, benefit most from watchful waiting and guided self-help. The entire SC program is more effective in women, patients in the first year after treatment, patients with a higher level of distress or anxiety or depressive disorder, patients who are feeling ill, and patients with less speech problems. TRIAL: NTR1868.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.