Lindemalm, C., Strang, P., & Lekander, M. (2005). Support group for cancer patients. Does it improve their physical and psychological wellbeing? A pilot study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 13, 652–657.

The residential, rehabilitative, psychoeducational intervention was conducted over a six-day period, followed by a four-day follow-up/booster intervention two months after the initial visit. Members of the intervention team included oncologists, social workers, art therapists, massage therapists, and a person trained in qigong and visualization; all had several years of experience and were trained according to the method reported by Grahn (1993). During the intervention period, participants received information about cancer, risk factors, treatment, psychological effects, and coping mechanisms. Physical exercise, relaxation training, qigong, and art therapy were mixed with educational lectures. Social activities, such as concerts and visits to museums and restaurants, were provided, along with opportunities for peer support. The residential rehabilitation environment was chosen for its beautiful and restful surroundings.

• Participants (n = 59) were primarily women; only two men participated.
• Median age was 53 years (range 29–81).
• Diagnoses included breast cancer (61%), gynecologic cancer (20%), and gastrointestinal malignancy (9%).
• Median time from end of treatment to the intervention was 1.2 years (range 6 months–3 years).

Residential rehabilitation setting selected specifically for the intervention

Patients were undergoing the long-term follow-up phase of care.

This was an uncontrolled study. Fatigue was evaluated immediately after the first six-day intervention, with follow-up at three, six, and 12 months postintervention.

The Norwegian fatigue questionnaire, an 11-item measure with two factors (physical and mental fatigue), was used. The total score was created by summing the 11 items.

At the conclusion of the intervention, there were statistically significant differences in fatigue reflected on most of the single-item scores on the Norwegian fatigue scale, as well as a statistically significant difference in the scores on the physical fatigue and mental fatigue factors. Only the improvement in physical fatigue remained statistically significant at three-month follow-up, and there were no significant improvements in fatigue at the six- and 12-month postintervention time points.

• No control group was included.
• The sample size was not justified by power analysis; it was unknown whether the study was powered to detect an effect.
• No information was provided relative to the psychometric properties of the fatigue measure.
• No explanation of the gender bias in study participation/recruitment was offered.
• Generalization of the results was limited by the primarily female sample and the overrepresentation of participants with breast and gynecologic malignancies.
• Costs of residential group treatment were unexplored.
• The program required the involvement of several skilled professionals.