Evaluating the acceptability of a self-directed, self-management intervention for patients and caregivers facing advanced cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objectives Coping-Together is a self-directed, self-management intervention initially developed for patients in early-stages of cancer and their caregivers. This study evaluated its acceptability among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Methods Twenty-six participants (patients with advanced cancer n = 15 and their caregivers n = 11) were given the Coping-Together materials (6 booklets and a workbook) for 7 weeks. Participants were interviewed twice during this time to solicit feedback on the intervention’s content, design, and recommended changes. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted. Results Participants found Coping-Together was mostly relevant. All ( n = 26, 100%) participants expressed interest and a desire to improve their self-management skills. Perceived benefits included learning to develop SMARTTER (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, timely, and done together) self-management plans, normalizing challenges, and enhancing communication within the dyad and with their healthcare team. Most ( n = 25, 96%) identified strategies from the booklets that benefited them. Top strategies learned were skills to manage physical health ( n = 20, 77%) (e.g., monitoring symptoms), emotional well-being ( n = 21, 81%) (e.g., reducing stress by reframing thoughts), as well as social well-being ( n = 24, 92%) (e.g., communicating with their healthcare team). Barriers included illness severity and time constraints. The unique advanced cancer needs that are to be integrated include support related to fear of death, uncertainty, palliative care and advanced care planning. Suggested modifications involved enhancing accessibility and including more advanced cancer information (e.g., end-of-life planning, comfort care, resources). Significance of results Participants reported several benefits from using Coping-Together, with minimal adaptations needed. Creating SMARTTER self-management plans helped them implement self-management strategies. Specific areas for improvement addressed the need for improved accessibility and more content related to advanced cancer. Findings demonstrate how Coping-Together is acceptable for those living with advanced cancer and their caregivers, offering much of the support needed to enhance day-to-day quality of life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».