Mahendran, R., Lim, H.A., Tan, J.Y.S., Hui, Y.N., Chua, J., Siew, E.L., . . . Kua, E.H. (2017). Evaluation of a brief pilot psychoeducational support group intervention for family caregivers of cancer patients: A quasi-experimental mixed-methods study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15, 1–8. 

DOI Link

Study Purpose

To evaluate the effects of a psychoeducational program (COPE) on caregivers of patients with cancer

Intervention Characteristics/Basic Study Process

The COPE (Caregivers of Cancer Outpatients' Psycho-Education Support Group Therapy) intervention was provided to caregivers during four weeks. The program included didactic content and supportive interventions in group sessions. Study measures were obtained before and after the intervention. A subgroup was invited to participate in semistructured interviews. Caregivers were placed in one of two groups, one of which was wait-listed and used as a control in the analysis.

Sample Characteristics

  • N = 97   
  • AGE = 21 years and older
  • MALES: 35.1%, FEMALES: 64.9%
  • CURRENT TREATMENT: Chemotherapy, radiation 
  • KEY DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: Patients had varied tumor types, and most had advanced disease.
  • OTHER KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: The majority had provided caregiving for 0–6 months.

Setting

  • SITE: Single site   
  • SETTING TYPE: Outpatient    
  • LOCATION: Singapore

Phase of Care and Clinical Applications

PHASE OF CARE: Multiple phases of care

Study Design

Nonrandomized, prospective, parallel group

Measurement Instruments/Methods

  • Caregiver Quality of Life scale
  • Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

Results

No significant differences existed between study groups in postintervention caregiver quality of life overall or burden subscale scores. Those in the wait-list control group had much better quality of life scores at baseline.

Conclusions

The intervention studied here did not demonstrate an effect on caregiver burden or quality of life.

Limitations

  • Small sample (< 100)
  • Baseline sample/group differences of import
  • Risk of bias (no blinding)
  • Risk of bias (no random assignment) 
  • Risk of bias (no appropriate attentional control condition)
  • Risk of bias (sample characteristics)
  • Key sample group differences that could influence results
  • Substantial differences between study groups existed at baseline for quality of life and burden.

Nursing Implications

The specific psychoeducational program examined here did not demonstrate an effect on caregivers. Several limitations existed.