MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405674723 · doi:10.1186/s40814-024-01556-7

PTSD Coach as an early mobile intervention to improve cancer-related anxiety and psychosocial oncology uptake in patients newly diagnosed with head and neck cancer: pilot randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4405674723 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurence Ducharme, Christopher Lo, Michael P. Hier, Anthony Zeitouni, Karen Kost, Alex Mlynarek, Michael H. Antoni, Eric Kuhn, Jason E. Owen, Daren K. Heyland, Robert W. Platt, Fabienne Fuehrmann, Nader Sadeghi, Zeev Rosberger, Saul Frenkiel, Khalil Sultanem, George Shenouda, Fabio Cury, Mélissa Henry

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychosocialAnxietyRandomized controlled trialMedicinePhysical therapyRandomizationHead and neck cancerIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)CancerPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This pilot study aimed to provide supportive evidence for the feasibility of conducting a full-scale intervention trial with patients newly diagnosed with head and neck cancer (HNC). This included assessing the acceptability and potential usefulness of the PTSD Coach mobile app as an early self-management intervention that gives information about anxiety symptoms, offers self-assessment of symptoms with feedback, tools to self-manage anxiety, and connects to support. METHODS: A three-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted. The primary pilot study questions related to feasibility were: (1) can we recruit enough (i.e., n = 60 over 8 months or 8/month) and retain a sufficient proportion (i.e., ≥ 85% at three months post-randomization, having completed the primary outcome) of patients with HNC in all trial arms? (2) Will there be at least a 90% completion rate of PTSD Coach within 3 weeks from randomization? (3) Will at least 85% of the content for each module of PTSD Coach be completed? (4) Will there be at least a 90% completion rate of the attention-control tasks (i.e., 45 min/week over 3 weeks)? (5) What would be the anticipated sample size for a full study? (6) We also explored a signal for intervention effects on 1-, 3-, and 6-month levels of cancer-related anxiety, quality of life, anxiety and depression, self-stigma of seeking help, and professional psycho-oncology service uptake. RESULTS: Participants comprised 39 patients (11 experimental group (EG), 13 attention-control (AC), 15 usual care (UC)), primarily male (82%). Enrolment was lower than expected, with strategies implemented to increase the study's participation rate (i.e., shortening the questionnaire, more relevant AC games, pacing study components, and enlarging eligibility to 4 weeks post-diagnosis instead of 2). Retention rates, intervention completion rates, and completion time were adequate. The intervention was acceptable with all patients (100%) who received PTSD Coach reporting it a positive experience and that they would recommend it to others. When compared to UC, there was a signal for the PTSD Coach group to report lower 3-month cancer-related anxiety (PCL-S; eta squared = 0.013), lower anxiety and depression (HADS; eta squared = 0.015), anxiety (HADS-A; eta squared = 0.028), and higher functional wellbeing (FACT-FW; eta squared = 0.09), based on effect sizes calculated across all three groups. The sample size for a full study was estimated to be 118 to 154 per group. CONCLUSION: A repeat pilot study with an expanded oncology population is warranted to further investigate feasibility prior to a full Phase III study. PTSD Coach could be a valuable self-management tool as an initial stepped-care approach intervention in patients newly diagnosed with HNC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03651570 . Registered June 26, 2018.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207