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, 88–96.

Intervention Characteristics/Basic Study Process

The Nucare program was a short-term psychoeducational coping strategies intervention. Three delivery formats were offered:  (1) small group, (2) one-to-one, and (3) a home format with didactic material. The didactic material comprised a workbook, cassette or CD containing spoken instruction to guide the individual through the workbook, and music to accompany the relaxation training component. Outcomes were quality of life (QOL) and depressive symptoms.

Sample Characteristics

  • The sample was comprised of 101 patients.
  • Patients were included if they had head and neck primary cancer, were up to 36 months following diagnosis, had finished their cancer treatment, and were able to understand and complete the study questionnaires.

Setting

Outpatient oncology clinic at the Jewish General Hospital Montreal, Canada

Phase of Care and Clinical Applications

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

Study Design

This was a feasibility study with a prospective, nonrandomized design, two groups, and repeated measures at baseline and three and four months.

Measurement Instruments/Methods

  • European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core QOL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) to measure health-related QOL
  • Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to measure depression and anxiety

Results

Compared with their baseline scores, the intervention group had improved physical and social functioning, global QOL, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and depressive symptoms. The control group showed no changes in QOL or depressive symptoms.

Limitations

  • The sample was a convenience one, and a significant number of people refused to participate, thereby reducing generalizibility.
  • Sample size was not based on any calculation or hypothesis; rather, it was determined by logistical and financial constraints, so some differences may have been missed owing to insufficient power.
  • Loss to follow-up was greater in the test group than in the control group.