AbstractPurposes/objectives: This paper reports the comparative efficacies of integrative body-mind-spirit intervention (I-BMS) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in patient-caregiver parallel groups for Chinese patients with lung cancer.Design: Randomized controlled trial (RCT).Methods: One hundred and fifty-seven patient-caregiver dyads with no marked functional impairment were randomized into one of the two interventions with eight weekly patient-caregiver parallel groups. Assessments were conducted at baseline, within one, eight- and sixteen-weeks post-intervention. Effects of treatment group across time were analyzed by multilevel modeling.Findings: CBT led to greater reduction in emotional vulnerability than I-BMS. I-BMS resulted in greater increase in overall QoL and spiritual self-care, and more reduction in depression than CBT. Patients in both interventions experienced improvement in physical, emotional and spiritual, except social, domains of QoL.Conclusion: I-BMS was more efficacious for diverse domains of QoL, and CBT was more effective for emotional well-being, despite the relatively small between-group effect sizes.Implications for psychosocial providers/policy: (1) With the expanding repertoire of psychosocial interventions for families facing lung cancer, it has become imperative to investigate the comparative efficacies of empirically supported and culturally adapted interventions. (2) Our findings show that I-BMS was more effective for diverse domains of QoL, while CBT was more efficacious with emotional well-being, although both interventions led to significant improvements in physical, emotional and spiritual domains of patient QoL. (3) Patient-caregiver parallel groups have been shown to be effective for enhancing QoL of Chinese lung cancer patients. (4) Care professionals are encouraged to dispense interventions based on the idiosyncratic needs and preferences of the patients to maximize the treatment effects. 相似文献
Background: The effectiveness of any national healthcare system is highly correlated with the strength of primary care within that system. A strong research basis is essential for a firm and vibrant primary care system. General practitioners (GPs) are at the centre of most primary care systems.
Objectives: To inform on actions required to increase research capacity in general practice, particularly in low capacity countries, we collected information from the members of the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) and the European World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca).
Methods: A qualitative design including eight semi-structured interviews and two discursive workshops were undertaken with members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe. Appreciative inquiry methods were utilized. Krueger’s (1994) framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data.
Results: Research performance in general practice requires improvements in the following areas: visibility of research; knowledge acquisition; mentoring and exchange; networking and research networks; collaboration with industry, authorities and other stakeholders. Research capacity building (RCB) strategies need to be both flexible and financially supported. Leadership and collaboration are crucial.
Conclusion: Members of the GP research community see the clear need for both national and international primary care research networks to facilitate appropriate RCB interventions. These interventions should be multifaceted, responding to needs at different levels and tailored to the context where they are to be implemented. 相似文献