ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Adapting an in-person acceptance and commitment therapy-based psychological intervention for fear of cancer recurrence into a digital format: a real-world evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeService evaluation comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of an in-person and a digitally delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)-based group programme for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) for breast cancer survivors.
methodsThe programme was designed and delivered as part of a real-world, supportive care intervention and adapted for digital delivery in response to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. FCR, quality of life (QoL), psychological flexibility, and psychological distress measures were routinely collected pre-participation, post-participation, and 12 weeks following completion.
resultsNinety-seven in-person and 61 digital participants completed the group programme. Uptake was 30% and retention 89% for in-person. Uptake was 23% and retention 64% for online referrals. Between group statistical analyses revealed non-significant differences between delivery modality on overall scores of FCR (p = 0.76), QoL (p = 0.06) and psychological distress (anxiety p = 0.16; depression p = 0.22). There was a significant difference in psychological flexibility scores (p = 0.04); digital participant scores were higher (mean = 83) than in-person participants (mean = 76.3). Within-group statistical analyses found a significant effect of time for all outcome measures, with a significant decrease in FCR and psychological distress and a significant increase in QoL and psychological flexibility (p < 0.001 for all measures). There were no statistically significant interaction effects between delivery modality and timepoint.
conclusionIn-person and online delivery of a real-world FCR group programme offered to breast-cancer survivors was found to be beneficial and comparable. These results support the potential benefits of a flexible approach to delivery modality of supportive care interventions. Further investigation is required to determine if these results are replicable within diverse populations.
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.