首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Randomized controlled pilot trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction compared to psychoeducational support for persistently fatigued breast and colorectal cancer survivors
Authors:Shelley A Johns  Linda F Brown  Kathleen Beck-Coon  Tasneem L Talib  Patrick O Monahan  R Brian Giesler  Yan Tong  Laura Wilhelm  Janet S Carpenter  Diane Von Ah  Christina D Wagner  Mary de Groot  Karen Schmidt  Diane Monceski  Marie Danh  Jennifer M Alyea  Kathy D Miller  Kurt Kroenke
Institution:1.Indiana University School of Medicine,Indianapolis,USA;2.Regenstrief Institute, Inc.,Indianapolis,USA;3.Indiana University School of Nursing,Indianapolis,USA;4.Butler University,Indianapolis,USA;5.West Virginia University School of Medicine,Charleston,USA;6.DePauw University Psychology Department,Greencastle,USA;7.Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health,Indianapolis,USA;8.Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center,Indianapolis,USA;9.VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication,Indianapolis,USA
Abstract:

Purpose

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a disruptive symptom for many survivors. Despite promising evidence for efficacy of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in reducing CRF, no trials comparing it to an active comparator for fatigued survivors have been published. The purpose of this trial was to compare MBSR to psychoeducation for CRF and associated symptoms.

Methods

Breast (n = 60) and colorectal (n = 11) cancer survivors (stage 0–III) with clinically significant CRF after completing chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy an average of 28 months prior to enrollment were randomized to MBSR or psychoeducation/support groups (PES). MBSR focused on mindfulness training; PES focused on CRF self-management. Outcomes included CRF interference (primary), CRF severity and global improvement, vitality, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and pain. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2), and 6-month follow-up (T3) using intent-to-treat analysis.

Results

Between-group differences in CRF interference were not significant at any time point; however, there was a trend favoring MBSR (d = ?0.46, p = 0.073) at T2. MBSR participants reported significantly greater improvement in vitality (d = 0.53, p = 0.003) and were more likely to report CRF as moderately to completely improved compared to the PES group (χ2 (1) = 4.1765, p = 0.041) at T2. MBSR participants also reported significantly greater reductions in pain at T2 (d = 0.53, p = 0.014). In addition, both MBSR and PES produced moderate-to-large and significant within-group improvements in all fatigue outcomes, depression, anxiety, and sleep at T2 and T3 compared to T1.

Conclusion

MBSR and PES appear efficacious for CRF and related symptoms. Larger trials including a usual care arm are warranted.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01724333.
Keywords:
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号