Digi-Do: a digital information tool to support patients with breast cancer before, during, and after start of radiotherapy treatment: an RCT study protocol

Sofi Fristedt, Frida Smith, Annika Grynne, Maria Browall, Sofi Fristedt, Frida Smith, Annika Grynne, Maria Browall

Abstract

Background: Radiation Therapy (RT) is a common treatment after breast cancer surgery and a complex process using high energy X-rays to eradicate cancer cells, important in reducing the risk of local recurrence. The high-tech environment and unfamiliar nature of RT can affect the patient's experience of the treatment. Misconceptions or lack of knowledge about RT processes can increase levels of anxiety and enhance feelings of being unprepared at the beginning of treatment. Moreover, the waiting time is often quite long. The primary aim of this study will be to evaluate whether a digital information tool with VR-technology and preparatory information can decrease distress as well as enhance the self-efficacy and health literacy of patients affected by breast cancer before, during, and after RT. A secondary aim will be to explore whether the digital information tool increase patient flow while maintaining or increasing the quality of care.

Method: The study is a prospective and longitudinal RCT study with an Action Research participatory design approach including mixed-methods data collection, i.e., standardised instruments, qualitative interviews (face-to-face and telephone) with a phenomenological hermeneutical approach, diaries, observations, and time measurements, and scheduled to take place from autumn 2020 to spring 2022. The intervention group (n = 80), will receive standard care and information (oral and written) and the digital information tool; and the control group (n = 80), will receive standard care and information (oral and written). Study recruitment and randomisation will be completed at two centres in the west of Sweden.

Discussion: Research in this area is scarce and, to our knowledge, only few previous studies examine VR as a tool for increasing preparedness for patients with breast cancer about to undergo RT that also includes follow-ups six months after completed treatment. The participatory approach and design will safeguard the possibilities to capture the patient perspective throughout the development process, and the RCT design supports high research quality. Digitalisation brings new possibilities to provide safe, person-centred information that also displays a realistic picture of RT treatment and its contexts. The planned study will generate generalisable knowledge of relevance in similar health care contexts.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04394325. Registered May 19, 2020. Prospectively registered.

Keywords: Evaluation; Health literacy; Participatory design; Self-efficacy; Virtual reality.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492.
    1. National Quality Register for Breast Cancer (NKBC). Yearly report. 2019. Stockholm: RCC i Samverkan.
    1. Rose P, Yates P. Person centred nursing care in radiation oncology: a case study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(5):554–562. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.02.001.
    1. Mullaney T, Pettersson H, Nyholm T, Stolterman S. Thinking beyond the cure: a case for human-centered design in cancer care. Int J Design. 2012;6(3):27–39.
    1. Halkett GKB, Kristjanson LJ, Lobb E, O’Driscoll C, Taylor M. Spry N (2010) Meeting breast cancer patients’ information needs during radiotherapy: what can we do to improve the information and support that is currently provided? Eur J Canc Care. 2010;19(538–547):2.
    1. Halkett G, Kristjanson LJ, Lobb E, Little J, Shaw T, Taylor M, Spry N. Information needs and preferences of women as they proceed through radiotherapy for breast cancer. Patient Educ Counsel. 2012;86(3):396–404. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.010.
    1. Smith SK, Nathan D, Taylor J, Van Gelder E, Dixon A, Halkett G, Milross C. Dhillon HM Patients’ experience of decision-making and receiving information during radiation therapy: a qualitative study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2017;30:97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.08.007.
    1. Elsner K, Naehrig D, Halkett G. Dhillon HM (2017) Reduced patient anxiety as a result of radiation therapist-led psychosocial support: a systematic review. J Med Radiat Sci. 2017;64:220–231. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.208.
    1. Halkett G, O'Connor M, Jefford M, et al. RT Prepare: a radiation therapist-delivered intervention reduces psychological distress in women with breast cancer referred for radiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2018;118(12):1549–1558. doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0112-z.
    1. Waller A, Forshaw K, Bryant J, Mair S. Interventions for preparing patients for chemotherapy and radiotherapy: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(8):2297–2308. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2303-3.
    1. Gillan C, Abrams D, Harnett N, Wiljer D, Catton P. Fears and misperceptions of radiation therapy: sources and impact on decision-making and anxiety. J Canc Educ. 2014;29:289–295. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0598-2.
    1. Jimenez YA, Cumming S, Wang W, Stuart K, Thwaites DI, Lewis SJ. Patient education using virtual reality increases knowledge and positive experience for breast cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4114-4.
    1. Marquess M, Johnston SP, Williams NL, Giordano C, Den RB. A pilot study to determine if the use of a virtual reality education module reduces anxiety and increases comprehension in patients receiving radiation therapy. J Radiat Oncol. 2017;6:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s13566-017-0298-3.
    1. Swedish Government. Hälso- och sjukvårdslagen [Health Care Act] (1982: 763). Stockholm: Swedish Government.
    1. Swedish Government. Patientsäkerhetslagen. [Patient safety Act] (2010: 659). Stockholm: Swedish Government.
    1. Swedish Government. Patientlagen. [The Patient Act] (2014: 821). Stockholm: Swedish Government.
    1. Berman A, Rosenthal SA, Moghanaki D, Woodhouse KD, Movsas B, Vapiwala N. Focusing on the “person” in personalized medicine: the future of patient-centered care in radiation oncology. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:1571–1578. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.012.
    1. Smith F, Wallengren C, Öhlén J. Participatory design in education materials in a health care context. Action Res. 2017;15(3):310–336. doi: 10.1177/1476750316646832.
    1. Speros C. Health literacy: concept analysis. J Advan Nurs. 2005;50(6):633–640. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03448.x.
    1. Mårtensson L, Hensing G. Health literacy—a heterogeneous phenomenon: a literature review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2012;26(1):151–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00900.x.
    1. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.
    1. Chirico A, Lucidi F, Merluzzi T, Alivernini F, De Laurentiis M, Botti G, Giordano A. A meta-analytic review of the relationship of cancer coping self-efficacy with distress and quality of life. Oncotarget. 2017;8(22):36800–36811. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15758.
    1. Heitzmann CA, Merluzzi TV, Jean-Pierre P, Roscoe JA, Kirsh KL, Passik SD. Assessing self-efficacy for coping with cancer: development and psychometric analysis of the brief version of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI-B) Psychooncology. 2011;20(3):302–312. doi: 10.1002/pon.1735.
    1. Lev EL, Eller LS, Kolassa J, Gejerman G, Collela J, Lane P, Scrofine S, Esposito M, Lanteri V, Scheuch J, Munver R. Exploratory factor analysis: strategies used by patients to promote health. World J Urol. 2007;25(1):87–93. doi: 10.1007/s00345-006-0126-7.
    1. Lopez-Olivo MA, Suarez-Almazor ME. Digital patient education and decision aids. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2019;45(2):245–256. doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2019.01.001.
    1. Williams K, Blencowe J, Ind M, Willis D. Meeting radiation therapy patients informational needs through educational videos augmented by 3D visualization software. J Med Radiat Sci. 2017;64(1):35–40. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.220.
    1. Schofield P, Jefford M, Carey M, Thomson K, Evans M, Baravelli C, Aranda S. Preparing patients for threatening medical treatments: effects of a chemotherapy educational DVD on anxiety, unmet needs, and self-efficacy. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16(1):37–45. doi: 10.1007/s00520-007-0273-4.
    1. Zeguers M, de Haes HC, Zandbelt LC, Claartje LTH, Franssen SJ, Geijsen DD, Koning CCE, Smets EMA. The information needs of new radiotherapy patients: how to measure? Do they want to know everything? And if not, why? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(1):418–424. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.09.032.
    1. Sarıtürk Ç, Gereklioğlu Ç, Korur A, Asma S, Yeral M, Solmaz S, Büyükkurt N, Tepebaşı S, Kozanoğlu İ, Boğa C, Özdoğu H. Effectiveness of visual methods in information procedures for stem cell recipients and donors. Turk J Haematol. 2017;34(4):321–327. doi: 10.4274/tjh.2016.0118.
    1. Liu ZJ, Dong H. Virtual reality technology for pain management. In: Langdon P, Lazar J, Dong H, editors. Designing around people. Cham: Springer; 2016. pp. 75–84.
    1. Gorini A, Capideville CS, de Leo G, Mantovani F, Riva G. The role of immersion and narrative in mediated presence: the virtual hospital experience. Cyberpsychol Behave Soc Netw. 2011;14(3):99–105. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0100.
    1. Zeng Y, Zhang JE, Cheng ASK, Cheng H, Wefel JS. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of virtual reality-based interventions in cancer-related symptom management. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019;18:1534735419871108. doi: 10.1177/1534735419871108.
    1. Gao J, Liu S, Zhang S, et al. Pilot study of a virtual reality educational intervention for radiotherapy patients prior to initiating treatment. J Canc Educ. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s13187-020-01848-5.
    1. Johnson K, Liszewski B, Dawdy K, Lai Y, McGuffin M. Learning in 360 degrees: a pilot study on the use of virtual reality for radiation therapy patient education. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2020;51(2):221–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2019.12.008.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm04.
    1. Spinuzzi C. The methodology of participatory design. Tech Commun. 2005;52(2):163–174.
    1. Grynne A, Smith F, Ahlberg K, Fristedt S, Brovall M. Integrating expert knowledge, innovation development team, and stakeholders using co-design to develop a digital information tool (in manuscript).
    1. Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psycho-logic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: a pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1904–1908. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980515)82:10<1904::AID-CNCR13>;2-X.
    1. Kenne Sarenmalm EK, Nasic S, Håkanson C, Öhlén J, Carlsson E, Pettersson ME, Sawatzky R. Swedish version of the Distress Thermometer: Validity evidence in patients with colorectal cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16(8):959–66.
    1. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995. pp. 35–37.
    1. Löve J, Moore CD, Hensing G. Validation of the Swedish translation of the general self-efficacy scale. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1249–1253. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0030-5.
    1. Wångdahl J, Mårtensson L. The communicative and critical health literacy scale—Swedish version. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42(1):25–31. doi: 10.1177/1403494813500592.
    1. Wångdahl JM, Mårtensson LI. Measuring health literacy—the Swedish Functional Health Literacy scale. Scand J Caring Sci. 2015;29(1):165–172. doi: 10.1111/scs.12125.
    1. Kayser L, Karnoe A, Furstrand D, Batterham R, Christensen K, Elsworth G, Osborne R. A multidimensional tool based on the eHealth literacy framework: development and initial validity testing of the eHealth Literacy Questionnaire (eHLQ) J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(2):e36. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8371.
    1. Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Care Res. 2003;49(2):156–163. doi: 10.1002/art.10993.
    1. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017.
    1. Lindseth A, Norberg A. A phenomenological hermeneutical method for researching lived experience. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;18(2):145–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00258.x.
    1. Ricoeur P. Interpretation theory: discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: TCU Press; 1976.
    1. Nilsen W, Kumar S, Shar A, Varoquiers C, Wiley T, Riley WT, Pavel M, Atienza AA. Advancing the science of mHealth. J Health Commun. 2012;17(sup1):5–10. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.677394.
    1. Balazs CL, Morello-Frosch R. The Three Rs: how community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environ Justice. 2013;6(1):9–16. doi: 10.1089/env.2012.0017.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren