4.6 Article

Development of CBT for chemotherapy-related cognitive change: results of a waitlist control trial

期刊

PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 176-186

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pon.1878

关键词

breast cancer; chemotherapy; cognitive dysfunction; cognitive-behavioral therapy; survivorship

资金

  1. Lance Armstrong Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a brief cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) that is being developed for management of cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy among breast cancer survivors. Memory and Attention Adaptation Training (MAAT) is a brief CBT designed to improve the quality of life and function among cancer survivors with post-chemotherapy cognitive complaints. Methods: An initial, two-group (MAAT versus waitlist, no treatment control), randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted. Forty stage I and II female breast cancer survivors (mean age550; SD56.4) were randomized to conditions and assessed at baseline, post-treatment (8 weeks) and 2-month follow-up assessment points on measures of: (1) self-reported daily cognitive failures; (2) quality of life; and (3) neuropsychological performance. Participants were also assessed for satisfaction with MAAT. Results: With education and IQ as covariates, MAAT participants made significant improvements relative to controls on the spiritual well-being subscale of the quality of life measure and on verbal memory, but statistical significance was not achieved on self-report of daily cognitive complaints. However, moderate-to-large effect sizes were observed on these outcomes. Participants gave MAAT high satisfaction ratings. Conclusions: Although this initial RCT is a small study, MAAT participants appear to improve on one measure of quality of life and verbal memory performance relative to no treatment controls and rate MAAT with high satisfaction. These data are encouraging and support the continued development and evaluation of MAAT efficacy. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据