Factors Influencing Preference for Intervention in a Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery and Tai Chi/ <i>Qigong</i> in Cancer Survivors

Author: Devesh Oberoi1, Andrew McLennan1, Katherine-Ann Piedalue1, Peter M Wayne2, Jennifer M Jones3, Linda E Carlson1
1 Division of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
2 Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
3 Cancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Conference/Journal: J Altern Complement Med
Date published: 2021 Apr 27
Other: Special Notes: doi: 10.1089/acm.2020.0400. , Word Count: 301

Introduction: An important gap between randomized efficacy research and real-world implementation of complementary therapies is the role of patient preferences in influencing engagement and outcome. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of patient preference on health outcomes, but few have investigated the factors associated with preference for interventions, which may be critical to assure the success of program implementation. The current study sought to explore the factors associated with patient preference in an ongoing randomized preference-based trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) versus Tai Chi/qigong (TCQ) (the Mindfulness and Tai Chi/qigong in Cancer Health [MATCH] study). Materials and Methods: A multi-method study design was used. A subsample of participants were purposely selected from the ongoing MATCH study to have representation from both intervention arms and from both men and women across different age groups. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the factors influencing initial patient preference. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using inductive thematic analysis. The treatment acceptability and preference measure was administered to determine patients' ratings of acceptability and credibility of both preferred and nonpreferred interventions. Results: A total of 13 participants were interviewed prior to program attendance, with 8 (62%) preferring TCQ and 5 (38%) choosing MBCR. Major themes related to patients' preference for intervention included: (1) expectations about the preferred intervention; (2) knowledge of the intervention; (3) past experiences with the intervention; and (4) self-efficacy. Participants' mean treatment acceptability scores were higher for their preferred program than their nonpreferred program. Conclusion: Understanding the factors that influence cancer survivors' preference for mind-body interventions can augment health care providers' knowledge of the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of interventions in clinical settings, as well as help patients make informed treatment decisions and improve satisfaction and outcomes. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03641222.

Keywords: complementary therapies; preference; psychosocial interventions; treatment acceptability.

PMID: 33902334 DOI: 10.1089/acm.2020.0400