Vilela, L.D., Nicolau, B., Mahmud, S., Edgar, L., Hier, M., Black, M., ... Allison, P.J. (2006). Comparison of psychosocial outcomes in head and neck cancer patients receiving a coping strategies intervention and control subjects receiving no intervention. Journal of Otolaryngology, 35(2), 88–96.

To show the effectiveness of the Nucare program, a short-term psychoeducational intervention for patients with a cancer diagnosis, on the ability of individuals with cancer to cope with their disease

• Three different delivery means were available, and participants chose the means they preferred. Delivery means were small-group format, one-to-one format, and home format.
• Outcomes were quality of life and symptoms of depression. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline and at three to four months after baseline.
• A control group received no intervention.
• The Nucare psychoeducational program provided a workbook describing effective coping, ways of thinking, communication, uses of social support, problem-solving techniques, and goal setting; healthful lifestyle; and relaxation training.

The sample was composed of 101 participants. The sample consisted of a convenience sample of patients with head or neck cancer. Participants had completed cancer treatment. The control group was matched to the internvention group in terms of length of time since diagnosis and stage of cancer.

• Outpatient clinic
• One hospital
• Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Feasibility study using a prospective, nonrandomized design

• European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30)
• Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

From baseline to follow-up, the test group showed improvement in most quality-of-life scores and statistically significant improvement of depression (1.2 points, p < 0.05). The control group showed deterioration in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and HADS scores at follow-up. However, none of the changes was statistically significant at the 5% level.

Intervention delivery is feasible.

• The study used a prospective, quasiexperimental design without randomization.
• The study employed a convenience sample, and many patients refused to participate. These factors reduce generalizability.
• Authors did not compare the three delivery formats.
• At baseline, the characteristics of the test and control groups were significantly different. Therefore, outcomes may not have been the result of the intervention.