Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Does adding coaching calls into an online lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors make it more acceptable and feasible than a self-guided version?
Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhile online interventions increase access to support, self-guided online programs have lower engagement and (potentially) efficacy than guided programs. However, the acceptability of guided programs to cancer survivors is less established. This study qualitatively explored whether the addition of guidance via two brief coaching calls to the Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) Online program, an online lifestyle intervention, was feasible and more acceptable than the self-guided version.
methodsParticipants were adult Australian cancer survivors randomized to receive either HLaC Online + coaching (n = 25) or HLaC Online (n = 27) as part of a larger clinical trial. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted (n = 21), and transcripts were analyzed via framework analysis, using deductive analysis of four a priori feasibility domains (adaption, acceptability, demand, practicality) and inductive analysis to generate novel subthemes. Recruitment ceased when content saturation was achieved.
resultsFeedback suggested guidance was a positive adaption, with benefits including high acceptability, practicality through program understanding, and maintenance of behavior change. Control participants reported high demand for coaching calls and lower acceptability.
conclusionsFeedback suggested that Australian cancer survivors found coaching calls acceptable and feasible, more so than the self-guided program. HLaC Online + coaching supported Australian cancer survivors to interact with the program more effectively than without coaching and achieve reported benefits in both physical and psychosocial health, suggesting better survivorship outcomes. Future research should implement the addition of coaching calls at a larger scale, to establish whether calls impact efficacy and engagement.
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.