Abstract
Purposes/objectives: This paper reports the comparative efficacies of integrative body-mind-spirit intervention (I-BMS) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in patient-caregiver parallel groups for Chinese patients with lung cancer.
Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Methods: One hundred and fifty-seven patient-caregiver dyads with no marked functional impairment were randomized into one of the two interventions with eight weekly patient-caregiver parallel groups. Assessments were conducted at baseline, within one, eight- and sixteen-weeks post-intervention. Effects of treatment group across time were analyzed by multilevel modeling.
Findings: CBT led to greater reduction in emotional vulnerability than I-BMS. I-BMS resulted in greater increase in overall QoL and spiritual self-care, and more reduction in depression than CBT. Patients in both interventions experienced improvement in physical, emotional and spiritual, except social, domains of QoL.
Conclusion: I-BMS was more efficacious for diverse domains of QoL, and CBT was more effective for emotional well-being, despite the relatively small between-group effect sizes.
Implications for psychosocial providers/policy: (1) With the expanding repertoire of psychosocial interventions for families facing lung cancer, it has become imperative to investigate the comparative efficacies of empirically supported and culturally adapted interventions. (2) Our findings show that I-BMS was more effective for diverse domains of QoL, while CBT was more efficacious with emotional well-being, although both interventions led to significant improvements in physical, emotional and spiritual domains of patient QoL. (3) Patient-caregiver parallel groups have been shown to be effective for enhancing QoL of Chinese lung cancer patients. (4) Care professionals are encouraged to dispense interventions based on the idiosyncratic needs and preferences of the patients to maximize the treatment effects.
Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Methods: One hundred and fifty-seven patient-caregiver dyads with no marked functional impairment were randomized into one of the two interventions with eight weekly patient-caregiver parallel groups. Assessments were conducted at baseline, within one, eight- and sixteen-weeks post-intervention. Effects of treatment group across time were analyzed by multilevel modeling.
Findings: CBT led to greater reduction in emotional vulnerability than I-BMS. I-BMS resulted in greater increase in overall QoL and spiritual self-care, and more reduction in depression than CBT. Patients in both interventions experienced improvement in physical, emotional and spiritual, except social, domains of QoL.
Conclusion: I-BMS was more efficacious for diverse domains of QoL, and CBT was more effective for emotional well-being, despite the relatively small between-group effect sizes.
Implications for psychosocial providers/policy: (1) With the expanding repertoire of psychosocial interventions for families facing lung cancer, it has become imperative to investigate the comparative efficacies of empirically supported and culturally adapted interventions. (2) Our findings show that I-BMS was more effective for diverse domains of QoL, while CBT was more efficacious with emotional well-being, although both interventions led to significant improvements in physical, emotional and spiritual domains of patient QoL. (3) Patient-caregiver parallel groups have been shown to be effective for enhancing QoL of Chinese lung cancer patients. (4) Care professionals are encouraged to dispense interventions based on the idiosyncratic needs and preferences of the patients to maximize the treatment effects.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 389-405 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Journal of Psychosocial Oncology |
| Volume | 38 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 9 Mar 2020 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2020 |
Bibliographical note
The authors would like to thank all the personnel (Hong Kong Cancer Fund, Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong) involved in subject recruitment and data collection. Particularly, we thanked Ms Ng Lai Ha, Tracy and Ms Chung Oi Yan, Florence from HKCF for conducting the group therapies along with other colleagues.Funding
The project has been supported by the General Research Funds of the Research Grants Council, Hong Kong (Project number: 17614515).
Keywords
- RCT
- comparative effectiveness
- family
- intervention research
- lung
- quality of Life
