It's time to address fear of cancer recurrence in family caregivers: usability study of an virtual version of the Family Caregiver—Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family caregivers of cancer survivors experience equal or greater levels of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) than survivors themselves. Some interventions have demonstrated their ability to reduce FCR among cancer survivors and dyads (patient and caregivers). However, to date, no validated intervention exists to focus solely on family caregiver's FCR. Objectives: This study aimed to (1) adapt the evidence-based in-person Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FORT) for family caregivers (referred here in as FC-FORT) and to a virtual delivery format and (2) test its usability when offered virtually. Methods: The adaptation of FC-FORT was overseen by an advisory board and guided by the Information Systems Research Framework. Following this adaptation, female family caregivers and therapists were recruited for the usability study. Participants took part in 7 weekly virtual group therapy sessions, a semi-structured exit interview and completed session feedback questionnaires. Therapists were offered a virtual training and weekly supervision. Fidelity of treatment administration was assessed each session. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Exit interviews were transcribed verbatim using NVivo Transcription and coded using conventional content analysis. Results were presented back to the advisory board to further refine FC-FORT. Results: = 16) met virtually on 7 occasions to adapt FC-FORT (i.e., patient manuals, virtual format) and discuss recruitment strategies. Minor (e.g., revised text, adapted materials to virtual format) and major adaptations (e.g., added and rearranged sessions) were made to FC-FORT and subsequently approved by the advisory board. Four family caregivers and three therapists took part in the first round of the usability testing. Six family caregivers and the same three therapists took part in the second round. Overall, participants were very satisfied with FC-FORT's usability. Qualitative analysis identified 4 key themes: usability of FC-FORT, satisfaction and engagement with content, group cohesion, and impact of FC-FORT. All participants indicated that they would recommend FC-FORT to others as is. Conclusions: Using a multidisciplinary advisory board, our team successfully adapted FC-FORT and tested its usability using videoconferencing. Results from this study indicate that the efficacy and acceptability of FC-FORT are now ready to be tested in a larger pilot study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".