Author: Chen X1,2, Gong X1, Shi C1, Sun L1, Tang Z1, Yuan Z3, Wang J4, Yu J5
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup>Key Lab of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education and Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment of Ministry of Health, School of Public Health, Fudan University, No. 130 Dongan RD, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Zip code: 200032, China.
<sup>2</sup>School of Public Health, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 1200 Cailun Rd, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, Zip code: 201203, China.
<sup>3</sup>Shanghai Cancer Rehabilitation Center, No. 164 Zhengning Rd 405 Nong, Shanghai, Zip code: 200050, China.
<sup>4</sup>Key Lab of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education and Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment of Ministry of Health, School of Public Health, Fudan University, No. 130 Dongan RD, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Zip code: 200032, China. jiweiwang@fudan.edu.
<sup>5</sup>Key Lab of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education and Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment of Ministry of Health, School of Public Health, Fudan University, No. 130 Dongan RD, Xuhui District, Shanghai, Zip code: 200032, China. jmy@fudan.edu.cn.
Conference/Journal: J Transl Med.
Date published: 2018 Sep 6
Other:
Volume ID: 16 , Issue ID: 1 , Pages: 250 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1186/s12967-018-1618-0. , Word Count: 237
BACKGROUND: Even though multi-focused psychosocial residence rehabilitation intervention (MPRRI) programs are widely implemented by the Shanghai Cancer Rehabilitation Club, these programs have not been rigorously evaluated. In this study, we evaluated the effects of a 21-day MPRRI program, on the quality of life (QoL) among cancer survivors.
METHODS: A total of 388 cancer patients were enrolled to either receive the 21-day MPRRI (n = 129) intervention or a waiting-list comparison (WLC) intervention (n = 259). The intervention group was offered community-based 21-day MPRRI program, combining supportive-expressive group, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and Guolin Qigong. QoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Version 3 Questionnaire. Multivariable linear models were used to compare changes in QoL values between the two groups.
RESULTS: After adjustment for the QoL score and other covariates at baseline, there was no significant difference in global health status (mean = 3.8, 95% CI - 1.3-9.0, P = 0.14) between the two groups after 6 months intervention. While compared with the WLC group, the intervention group showed significant improvements in the QoL score (all P < 0.05); however, there were no clinically relevant changes in subscales including emotional functioning (ES = 0.58), cognitive functioning (ES = 0.53), pain (ES = 0.52), physical functioning (ES = 0.36), and insomnia (ES = 0.30).
CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest the MPRRI program is both feasible and acceptable intervention for cancer survivors in community settings and is effective in significant improving QoL above.
KEYWORDS: Cancer survivors; Psychosocial intervention; Quality of life; Rehabilitation
PMID: 30189876 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-018-1618-0