Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38708072›Full record

ArticleAMRC open research2021

Evaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial).

Nicholas J Hulbert-Williams, Lee Hulbert-Williams, Ryan James Flynn, Rosina Pendrous, Carey MacDonald-Smith, Anna Mullard, Brooke Swash, Gemma Evans, Annabel Price

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMRC open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03553784 (Evaluating Process and Effectiveness of Low-intensity Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Women With Gynaecological Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT03553784 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluating Process and Effectiveness of Low-intensity Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Women With Gynaecological Cancer: The EPELIT Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ChesterRan2018 to 2020Enrolled32ConditionsGynecological CancerArmsGroup delivered Low Intensity Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Nicholas J Hulbert-WilliamsCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9041-5485
Lee Hulbert-WilliamsCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK.
Ryan James FlynnCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK.
Rosina PendrousCentre for Contextual Behavioural Science, School of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9085-9876
Carey MacDonald-SmithNorth Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Bodelwyddan, Rhyl, LL18 5UJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4410-8227
Anna MullardYsbyty Gwynedd, Bangor, LL57 2PW, UK.
Brooke SwashSchool of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK.
Gemma EvansSchool of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK.
Annabel PriceDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs. Methods: We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group. Results: We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety ( Conclusions: This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03553784 (registered 14 June 2018).

Indexed as

anxietycognitive behavioural therapydepressiondistressGynaecological cancerlow-intensityquality of lifeunmet needs

Identifiers

PMID38708072
PMCPMC11064984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.