Feasibility of Systems Support Mapping to guide patient-driven health self-management in colorectal cancer survivors
Stephanie J Sohl, Deanna Befus, Janet A Tooze, Beverly Levine, Shannon L Golden, Nicole Puccinelli-Ortega, Boris C Pasche, Kathryn E Weaver, Kristen Hassmiller Lich, Stephanie J Sohl, Deanna Befus, Janet A Tooze, Beverly Levine, Shannon L Golden, Nicole Puccinelli-Ortega, Boris C Pasche, Kathryn E Weaver, Kristen Hassmiller Lich
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate feasibility of System Support Mapping (MAP), a systems thinking activity that involves creating a diagram of existing self-management activities (e.g. symptom management, health behaviors) to facilitate autonomous engagement in optimal self-management.
Design: One-arm pilot study of MAP in colorectal cancer survivors (NCT03520283).
Main outcome measures: Feasibility of recruitment and retention (primary outcome), acceptability, and outcome variability over time.
Results: We enrolled 24 of 66 cancer survivors approached (36%) and 20 completed follow-up (83%). Key reasons for declining participation included: not interested (n = 18), did not perceive a need (n = 9), and emotional distress/overwhelmed (n = 7). Most participants reported that MAP was acceptable (e.g. 80% liked MAP quite a bit/very much). Exploratory analyses revealed a -4.68 point reduction in fatigue from before to 2 weeks after MAP exceeding a minimally important difference (d = -0.68). There were also improvements in patient autonomy (d = 0.63), self-efficacy (for managing symptoms: d = 0.56, for managing chronic disease: d = 0.44), psychological stress (d = -0.45), anxiety (d = -0.34), sleep disturbance (d = -0.29) and pain (d = -0.32). Qualitative feedback enhanced interpretation of results.
Conclusions: MAP feasibility in colorectal cancer survivors was mixed, predominantly because many patients did not perceive a need for this approach. MAP was acceptable among participants and showed promise for improving health outcomes.
Keywords: Cancer survivors; autonomy; distress; fatigue; self-efficacy; self-management.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests
The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report relevant to the content of this article.
Figures
Source: PubMed