Current landscape of ecological momentary assessment (real-time data) methodology in cancer research: a systematic review.

To critically synthesize and describe the use and methods of ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in cancer research. A systematic review was conducted and has been reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Guideline. Electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection) were searched using a variety of keywords and subject headings by an expert systematic review librarian. All publications were double screened by two reviewers using predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria throughout the full review process. The review used Covidence Systematic Review Software. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were performed. A narrative synthesis was conducted to examine the aim for EMA, the characteristics of the study samples, the EMA sampling procedures, EMA completion rates, outcome measures, and any implications of findings for survivorship care. A total of 42 EMA studies in cancer were included. Most studies used an electronic mobile device to capture EMA data apart from several that used paper diaries. Existing studies were found to have significant heterogeneity in methods and widely varying approaches to design and self-report measurements. While EMA in cancer research holds significant promise to advance cancer care research into the future by increasing ecological validity and reducing retrospective bias and can capture the unique idiographic within-person change over time, in real-time, further research is needed to develop standardized EMA self-report questionnaires. This is the first comprehensive systematic review to describe the use and methods of EMA in cancer research. There is significant heterogeneity in methods and widely varying approaches to design and self-report measurements in EMA cancer research. People affected by cancer found taking part in EMA studies reported benefit from the experience. However, researchers must engage with cancer survivors in the development and co-design of future EMA questionnaires to ensure relevant and acceptability of EMA data collection protocols

Ensuring Treatment Fidelity in a Multi-site Behavioral Intervention Study: Implementing NIH Behavior Change Consortium Recommendations in the SMART Trial

The Stories and Music for Adolescent/Young Adult Resilience during Transplant (SMART) study (R01NR008583; U10CA098543; U10CA095861) is an ongoing multi-site Children’s Oncology Group randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy of a therapeutic music video intervention for adolescents/young adults (11–24 years of age) with cancer undergoing stem cell transplant. Treatment fidelity strategies from our trial are consistent with the NIH Behavior Change Consortium Treatment Fidelity Workgroup (BCC) recommendations and provide a successful working model for treatment fidelity implementation in a large, multi-site behavioral intervention study. In this paper we summarize 20 specific treatment fidelity strategies used in the SMART trial and how these strategies correspond with NIH BCC recommendations in 5 specific areas: 1) study design, 2) training providers, 3) delivery of treatment, 4) receipt of treatment, and 5) enactment of treatment skills. Increased use and reporting of treatment fidelity procedures is essential in advancing the reliability and validity of behavioral intervention research. The SMART trial provides a strong model for the application of fidelity strategies to improve scientific findings and addresses the absence of published literature illustrating the application of BCC recommendations in behavioral intervention studies

Telehealth cancer-related fatigue clinic model for cancer survivors: A pilot randomised controlled trial protocol (the T-CRF trial)

INTRODUCTION: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common and debilitating adverse effects of cancer and its treatment reported by cancer survivors. Physical activity, psychological interventions and management of concurrent symptoms have been shown to be effective in alleviating CRF. This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) will determine the feasibility of a telehealth CRF clinic intervention (T-CRF) to implement evidence-based strategies and assess the impact of the intervention on CRF and other clinical factors in comparison to usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A parallel-arm (intervention vs usual care) pilot RCT will be conducted at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Queensland, Australia. Sixty cancer survivors aged 18 years and over, who report moderate or severe fatigue on the Brief Fatigue Inventory and meet other study criteria will be recruited. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive the T-CRF intervention or usual care (ie, specialist-led care, with a fatigue information booklet). The intervention is a 24-week programme of three telehealth nurse-led consultations and a personalised CRF management plan. The primary objective of this pilot RCT is to determine intervention feasibility, with a secondary objective to determine preliminary clinical efficacy. Feasibility outcomes include the identification of recruitment methods; recruitment rate and uptake; attrition; adherence; fidelity; apathy; and intervention functionality, acceptability and satisfaction. Clinical and resource use outcomes include cancer survivor fatigue, symptom burden, level of physical activity, productivity loss, hospital resource utilisation and carer\u27s fatigue and productivity loss. Descriptive statistics will be used to report on feasibility and process-related elements additional to clinical and resource outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is prospectively registered (ACTRN12620001334998). The study protocol has been approved by the Metro South Health and Hospital Services Human Research Ethics Committee (MSHHS HREC/2020/QMS/63495). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, national and international conferences and seminars or workshops. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12620001334998; Pre-results. Trial Version: Version 1.1. Last updated 10 December 2020

Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods

Background: Self-administered survey questionnaires are an important data collection tool in clinical practice, public health research and epidemiology. They are ideal for achieving a wide geographic coverage of the target population, dealing with sensitive topics and are less resource intensive than other data collection methods. These survey questionnaires can be delivered electronically, which can maximise the scalability and speed of data collection while reducing cost. In recent years, the use of apps running on consumer smart devices (i.e., smartphones and tablets) for this purpose has received considerable attention. However, variation in the mode of delivering a survey questionnaire could affect the quality of the responses collected. Objectives: To assess the impact that smartphone and tablet apps as a delivery mode have on the quality of survey questionnaire responses compared to any other alternative delivery mode: paper, laptop computer, tablet computer (manufactured before 2007), short message service (SMS) and plastic objects. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, IEEEXplore, Web of Science, CABI: CAB Abstracts, Current Contents Connect, ACM Digital, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, the Campbell Library and CENTRAL. We also searched registers of current and ongoing clinical trials such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched the grey literature in OpenGrey, Mobile Active and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses. Lastly, we searched Google Scholar and the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. We performed all searches up to 12 and 13 April 2015. Selection criteria: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), crossover trials and paired repeated measures studies that compared the electronic delivery of self-administered survey questionnaires via a smartphone or tablet app with any other delivery mode. We included data obtained from participants completing health-related self-administered survey questionnaire, both validated and non-validated. We also included data offered by both healthy volunteers and by those with any clinical diagnosis. We included studies that reported any of the following outcomes: data equivalence; data accuracy; data completeness; response rates; differences in the time taken to complete a survey questionnaire; differences in respondent’s adherence to the original sampling protocol; and acceptability to respondents of the delivery mode. We included studies that were published in 2007 or after, as devices that became available during this time are compatible with the mobile operating system (OS) framework that focuses on apps. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies using a standardised form created for this systematic review in REDCap. They then compared their forms to reach consensus. Through an initial systematic mapping on the included studies, we identified two settings in which survey completion took place: controlled and uncontrolled. These settings differed in terms of (i) the location where surveys were completed, (ii) the frequency and intensity of sampling protocols, and (iii) the level of control over potential confounders (e.g., type of technology, level of help offered to respondents).We conducted a narrative synthesis of the evidence because a meta-analysis was not appropriate due to high levels of clinical and methodological diversity. We reported our findings for each outcome according to the setting in which the studies were conducted. Main results: We included 14 studies (15 records) with a total of 2275 participants; although we included only 2272 participants in the final analyses as there were missing data for three participants from one included study. Regarding data equivalence, in both controlled and uncontrolled settings, the included studies found no significant differences in the mean overall scores between apps and other delivery modes, and that all correlation coefficients exceeded the recommended thresholds for data equivalence. Concerning the time taken to complete a survey questionnaire in a controlled setting, one study found that an app was faster than paper, whereas the other study did not find a significant difference between the two delivery modes. In an uncontrolled setting, one study found that an app was faster than SMS. Data completeness and adherence to sampling protocols were only reported in uncontrolled settings. Regarding the former, an app was found to result in more complete records than paper, and in significantly more data entries than an SMS-based survey questionnaire. Regarding adherence to the sampling protocol, apps may be better than paper but no different from SMS. We identified multiple definitions of acceptability to respondents, with inconclusive results: preference; ease of use; willingness to use a delivery mode; satisfaction; effectiveness of the system informativeness; perceived time taken to complete the survey questionnaire; perceived benefit of a delivery mode; perceived usefulness of a delivery mode; perceived ability to complete a survey questionnaire; maximum length of time that participants would be willing to use a delivery mode; and reactivity to the delivery mode and its successful integration into respondents’ daily routine. Finally, regardless of the study setting, none of the included studies reported data accuracy or response rates. Authors’ conclusions: Our results, based on a narrative synthesis of the evidence, suggest that apps might not affect data equivalence as long as the intended clinical application of the survey questionnaire, its intended frequency of administration and the setting in which it was validated remain unchanged. There were no data on data accuracy or response rates, and findings on the time taken to complete a self-administered survey questionnaire were contradictory. Furthermore, although apps might improve data completeness, there is not enough evidence to assess their impact on adherence to sampling protocols. None of the included studies assessed how elements of user interaction design, survey questionnaire design and intervention design might influence mode effects. Those conducting research in public health and epidemiology should not assume that mode effects relevant to other delivery modes apply to apps running on consumer smart devices. Those conducting methodological research might wish to explore the issues highlighted by this systematic review

Personalized versus standard cognitive behavioral therapy for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms or cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors:Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (MAtCH-study)

© 2021, The Author(s).Background: Fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and cancer-related fatigue are prevalent symptoms among cancer survivors, adversely affecting patients’ quality of life and daily functioning. Effect sizes of interventions targeting these symptoms are mostly small to medium. Personalizing treatment is assumed to improve efficacy. However, thus far the empirical support for this approach is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate if systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy is more efficacious than standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors with moderate to severe fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and/or cancer-related fatigue. Methods: The study is designed as a non-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms (ratio 1:1): (a) systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy and (b) standard cognitive behavioral therapy. In the standard treatment arm, patients receive an evidence-based diagnosis-specific treatment protocol for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related fatigue. In the second arm, treatment is personalized on four dimensions: (a) the allocation of treatment modules based on ecological momentary assessments, (b) treatment delivery, (c) patients’ needs regarding the symptom for which they want to receive treatment, and (d) treatment duration. In total, 190 cancer survivors who experience one or more of the targeted symptoms and ended their medical treatment with curative intent at least 6 months to a maximum of 5 years ago will be included. Primary outcome is limitations in daily functioning. Secondary outcomes are level of fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, fatigue severity, quality of life, goal attainment, therapist time, and drop-out rates. Participants are assessed at baseline (T0), and after 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2). Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of personalized cognitive behavioral therapy to standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors. The study has several innovative characteristics, among which is the personalization of interventions on several dimensions. If proven effective, the results of this study provide a first step in developing an evidence-based framework for personalizing therapies in a systematic and replicable way. Trial registration: The Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NL7481 (NTR7723). Registered on 24 January 2019

Personalized versus standard cognitive behavioral therapy for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms or cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors:study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (MATCH-study)

Abstract Background Fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and cancer-related fatigue are prevalent symptoms among cancer survivors, adversely affecting patients’ quality of life and daily functioning. Effect sizes of interventions targeting these symptoms are mostly small to medium. Personalizing treatment is assumed to improve efficacy. However, thus far the empirical support for this approach is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate if systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy is more efficacious than standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors with moderate to severe fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and/or cancer-related fatigue. Methods The study is designed as a non-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms (ratio 1:1): (a) systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy and (b) standard cognitive behavioral therapy. In the standard treatment arm, patients receive an evidence-based diagnosis-specific treatment protocol for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related fatigue. In the second arm, treatment is personalized on four dimensions: (a) the allocation of treatment modules based on ecological momentary assessments, (b) treatment delivery, (c) patients’ needs regarding the symptom for which they want to receive treatment, and (d) treatment duration. In total, 190 cancer survivors who experience one or more of the targeted symptoms and ended their medical treatment with curative intent at least 6 months to a maximum of 5 years ago will be included. Primary outcome is limitations in daily functioning. Secondary outcomes are level of fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, fatigue severity, quality of life, goal attainment, therapist time, and drop-out rates. Participants are assessed at baseline (T0), and after 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2). Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of personalized cognitive behavioral therapy to standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors. The study has several innovative characteristics, among which is the personalization of interventions on several dimensions. If proven effective, the results of this study provide a first step in developing an evidence-based framework for personalizing therapies in a systematic and replicable way. Trial registration The Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NL7481 (NTR7723). Registered on 24 January 2019