Digital intervention (Renewed) to support symptom management, wellbeing, and quality of life among cancer survivors in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

作者：Paul Little, Katherine Bradbury, Beth Stuart, Jane Barnett, Adele Krusche, Mary Steele, Elena Heber, Stephanie Easton, Kirsten A. Smith, Joanna Slodkowska‐Barabasz, Liz Payne, Teresa Corbett, Laura Wilde, Guiqing Yao, Sebastien Pollet, Jazzine Smith, Judith Joseph, Megan Lawrence, Dankmar Böhning, Tara Cheetham‐Blake, Diana Eccles, Claire Foster, Adam W A Geraghty, Geraldine Leydon, André Müller, Richard D Neal, Richard H. Osborne, Shanaya Rathod, Alison Richardson, Chloe Grimmett, Geoffrey Sharman, Roger Bacon, Lesley Turner, Richard Stephens, Kirsty Rogers, James Raftery, Shihua Zhu, Karmpaul Singh, Frances Webley, Gareth Griffiths, Jacqueline Nuttall, Trudie Chalder, Clare Wilkinson, Eila Watson, Lucy Yardley · 发表于：British Journal of General Practice · 年份：2023 · DOI：10.3399/bjgp.2023.0262 · 被引用次数：7 · 研究领域：Cancer survivorship and care、Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer、Medication Adherence and Compliance

Background Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life. Aim To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors. Design and setting This was a pragmatic parallel open randomised trial in UK general practices (ISRCTN:96374224). Method People having finished primary treatment (≤10 years previously) for colorectal, breast, or prostate cancers, with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) score ≤85, were randomised by online software to: 1) detailed ‘generic’ digital NHS support (‘LiveWell’; n = 906); 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention (‘Renewed’; n = 903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, and distress; or 3) ‘Renewed with support’ ( n = 903): ‘Renewed’ with additional brief email and telephone support. Results Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice. At 6 months all groups improved (primary time point: n for the generic, Renewed groups, and Renewed with support were 806, 749, and 705, respectively), with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both the Renewed groups. By 12 months there were small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed with support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.33 to 2.51); both Renewed groups improved global ...