4.6 Article

Uptake and adherence to an online intervention for cancer-related distress: older age is not a barrier to adherence but may be a barrier to uptake

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 1905-1914

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3591-1

关键词

Online intervention; Cancer; Cognitive behavioural therapy; Uptake; Adherence

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council [1042942]
  2. National Breast Cancer Foundation [PRAC-16-002] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While online interventions are increasingly explored as an alternative to therapist-based interventions for cancer-related distress, limitations to efficacy potentially include low uptake and adherence. Few predictors of uptake or adherence to online interventions have been consistently identified, particularly in individuals with cancer. This study examined rates and predictors of uptake and adherence to Finding My Way, a RCT of an online intervention versus an information-only online control for cancer-related distress. Participants were adults with cancer treated with curative intent. Adherence was assessed by login frequency, duration and activity level; analyses examined demographic, medical and psychological predictors of uptake and adherence. The study enrolled 191 adults (aged 26-94 years) undergoing active treatment for cancer of any type. Uptake was highest for females and for individuals with ovarian (80%) and breast cancer (49.8%), and lowest for those with melanoma (26.5%). Adherence was predicted by older age and control-group allocation. Baseline distress levels did not predict adherence. High adherers to the full intervention had better emotion regulation and quality of life than low adherers. Uptake of online intervention varies according to age, gender and cancer type. While uptake was higher amongst younger individuals, once enrolled, older individuals were more likely to adhere to online interventions for cancer-related distress.

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