These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: BREATH: Web-Based Self-Management for Psychological Adjustment After Primary Breast Cancer--Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: van den Berg SW, Gielissen MF, Custers JA, van der Graaf WT, Ottevanger PB, Prins JB.
    Journal: J Clin Oncol; 2015 Sep 01; 33(25):2763-71. PubMed ID: 26169621.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: Early breast cancer survivors (BCSs) report high unmet care needs, and easily accessible care is not routinely available for this growing population. The Breast Cancer E-Health (BREATH) trial is a Web-based self-management intervention to support the psychological adjustment of women after primary treatment, by reducing distress and improving empowerment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial evaluated whether care as usual (CAU) plus BREATH is superior to CAU alone. BREATH is delivered in sixteen fully automated weekly modules covering early survivorship issues. Two to 4 months post-treatment, BCSs were randomly assigned to receive CAU + BREATH (n = 70) or CAU alone (n = 80) using a stratified block design (ratio 1:1). Primary outcomes were distress (Symptom Checklist-90) and empowerment (Cancer Empowerment Questionnaire), assessed before random assignment (baseline, T0) and after 4 (T1), 6 (T2), and 10 months (T3) of follow-up. Statistical (analysis of covariance) and clinical effects (reliable change index) were tested in an intention-to-treat analysis (T0 to T1). Follow-up effects (T0 to T3) were assessed in assessment completers. RESULTS: CAU + BREATH participants reported significantly less distress than CAU-alone participants (-7.79; 95% CI, -14.31 to -1.27; P = .02) with a small-to-medium effect size (d = 0.33), but empowerment was not affected (-1.71; 95% CI, 5.20 to -1.79; P = .34). More CAU + BREATH participants (39 of 70 [56%]; 95% CI, 44.1 to 66.8) than CAU-alone participants (32 of 80 [40%]; 95% CI, 30.0 to 51.0) showed clinically significant improvement (P = .03). This clinical effect was most prominent in low-distress BCSs. Secondary outcomes confirmed primary outcomes. There were no between-group differences in primary outcomes during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Access to BREATH reduced distress among BCSs, but this effect was not sustained during follow-up.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]