Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39445735›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024

Behavior change theory and behavior change technique use in cancer rehabilitation interventions: a secondary analysis.

M Lauren Voss, Rachelle Brick, Lynne S Padgett, Stephen Wechsler, Yash Joshi, Genevieve Ammendolia Tomé, Sasha Arbid, Grace Campbell, Kristin L Campbell, Dima El Hassanieh and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

16 authors.

M Lauren VossUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Rachelle BrickDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Behavioral Research Program, Basic Biobehavioral and Psychological Sciences Research Branch, Rockville, MD, USA.
Lynne S PadgettVeterans Affairs, Office of Research Development, Washington DC, USA.
Stephen WechslerDepartment of Occupational Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, USA.
Yash JoshiUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Genevieve Ammendolia ToméUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sasha ArbidUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Grace CampbellDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Duquesne University, School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, MA, USA.
Kristin L CampbellDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Dima El HassaniehUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Caroline KleinMrs. T.H. Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Adrienne LamUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kathleen D LyonsDepartment of Occupational Therapy, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA, USA.
Aisha SabirWest Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lewisburg, WV, USA.
Alix G SleightDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jennifer M JonesUniversity Health Network, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Toronto, ON, Canada - jennifer.jones@uhn.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence depicting ways that behavioral theory and techniques have been incorporated into cancer rehabilitation interventions. Examining their use within cancer rehabilitation interventions may provide insight into the active ingredients that can maximize patient engagement and intervention effectiveness.

aimThis secondary analysis aimed to describe the use of behavior change theory and behavior change techniques (BCTs) in two previously conducted systematic reviews of cancer rehabilitation interventions.

designSecondary analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) drawn from two systematic reviews examining the effect of cancer rehabilitation interventions on function and disability.

settingIn-person and remotely delivered rehabilitation interventions. POPULATION: Adult cancer survivors.

methodsData extraction included: behavior change theory use, functional outcome data, and BCTs using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1). Based on their effects on function, interventions were categorized as "very", "quite" or "non-promising". To assess the relative effectiveness of coded BCTs, a BCT promise ratio was calculated (the ratio of promising to non-promising interventions that included the BCT).

resultsOf 180 eligible RCTs, 25 (14%) reported using a behavior change theory. Fifty-four (58%) of the 93 BCTs were used in least one intervention (range 0-29). Interventions reporting theory use utilized more BCTs (median=7) compared to those with no theory (median=3.5; U=2827.00, P=0.001). The number of BCTs did not differ between the very, quite, and non-promising intervention groups (H(2)=0.24, P=0.85). 20 BCTs were considered promising (promise ratio >2) with goal setting, graded tasks, and social support (unspecified) having the highest promise ratios.

conclusionsWhile there was a wide range of BCTs utilized, they were rarely based on theoretically-proposed pathways and the number of BCTs reported was not related to intervention effectiveness. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Clinicians should consider basing new interventions upon a relevant behavior change theory. Intentionally incorporating the BCTs of goal setting, graded tasks, and social support may improve intervention efficacy.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyCancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39445735
PMCPMC11713631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.