Delivering a Group-Based Quality of Life Intervention to Young Adult Cancer Survivors via a Web Platform: Feasibility Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young adult (YA) cancer survivors aged 18-39 frequently report unmet health information and peer support needs, as well as poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Our team has developed a supportive care intervention, titled TOGETHER-YA, to improve YA cancer survivors' stress management skills. TOGETHER-YA is delivered via videoconference and has shown initial feasibility, acceptability, and promise for improving HRQOL among YA survivors. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this two-part study was to design and test a website to host the TOGETHER-YA intervention for YA cancer survivors aged 18-39. TOGETHER-YA is a 10-week, group-based program designed to promote health-related quality of life. METHODS: In Part 1, we leveraged an existing online platform and adapted it to meet the needs of TOGETHER-YA. We conducted three iterative waves of usability testing with three YAs per wave to refine the website. In Part 2, we conducted a single-group feasibility trial of TOGETHER-YA using the website. Primary outcomes were feasibility (i.e., recruitment, retention, attendance) and acceptability (i.e., satisfaction). RESULTS: Usability testing participants (N=9) indicated that the TOGETHER-YA website was easy to use (M=5.9, SD=1.3) and easy to learn (M=6.5, SD=0.9) (possible ranges: 1-7). Qualitative feedback identified needed revisions to the aesthetics (e.g., images), content (e.g., session titles), function (e.g., clarity of functionality), and structure (e.g., expandable sections), which were implemented. In the feasibility trial, participants (N=7) were an average of 25 years old (SD=4.7) and mostly non-Hispanic White (57%). Recruitment (70%) and retention (71%) rates and average session attendance (M=7.1, SD=4.2) supported feasibility. Participant agreement with positive statements about TOGETHER-YA and average satisfaction ratings (M=5.06, SD=1.64; possible range: 1-7) demonstrated acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Results supported the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the TOGETHER-YA program and website. By hosting the content online, the program effectively addresses YAs' expressed preference for convenience. Future studies are needed to increase TOGETHER-YA's efficiency and explore its efficacy for improving targeted outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL: NCT05597228, October 24, 2022.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".