Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHulbert-Williams, Nicholas J.
dc.contributor.authorHulbert-Williams, Lee
dc.contributor.authorFlynn, Ryan J.
dc.contributor.authorPendrous, Rosina
dc.contributor.authorMacDonald-Smith, Carey
dc.contributor.authorMullard, Anna
dc.contributor.authorSwash, Brooke
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Gemma
dc.contributor.authorPrice, Annabel
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-09T15:09:51Z
dc.date.available2021-03-09T15:09:51Z
dc.date.issued2021-03-29
dc.identifierhttps://chesterrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10034/624330/EPELIT.pdf?sequence=1
dc.identifier.citationHulbert-Williams, N. J., Hulbert-Williams, L., Flynn, R. J., Pendrous, R., MacDonald-Smith, C., Mullard, A., Swash, B., Evans, G., & Price, A. (2021). Evaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial). AMRC Open Research, 3, 12. https://doi.org/10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10034/624330
dc.descriptionThis document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a published work that appeared in final form in AMRC Open Research. To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.12688/amrcopenres.12971.1en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Improving survival from gynaecological cancers is creating an increasing clinical challenge for long-term distress management. Psychologist-led interventions for cancer survivors can be beneficial, but are often costly. The rise of the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) workforce in the UK might offer a cheaper, but equally effective, intervention delivery method that is more sustainable and accessible. We aimed to test the effectiveness of a PWP co-facilitated intervention for reducing depression and anxiety, quality of life and unmet needs. Methods: We planned this trial using a pragmatic, non-randomised controlled design, recruiting a comparator sample from a second clinical site. The intervention was delivered over six-weekly sessions; data were collected from participants at baseline, weekly during the intervention, and at one-week and three-month follow-up. Logistical challenges meant that we only recruited 8 participants to the intervention group, and 26 participants to the control group. Results: We did not find significant, between-group differences for depression, quality of life or unmet needs, though some differences at follow-up were found for anxiety (p<.001). Analysis of potential intervention mediator processes indicated the potential importance of self-management self-efficacy. Low uptake into the psychological intervention raises questions about (a) patient- driven needs for group-based support, and (b) the sustainability of this intervention programme. Conclusions: This study failed to recruit to target; the under-powered analysis likely explains the lack of significant effects reported, though some trends in the data are of interest. Retention in the intervention group, and low attrition in the control group indicate acceptability of the intervention content and trial design; however a small baseline population rendered this trial infeasible in its current design. Further work is required to answer our research questions, but also, importantly, to address low uptake for psychological interventions in this group of cancer survivors.en_US
dc.publisherF1000Researchen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://amrcopenresearch.org/en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://amrcopenresearch.org/articles/3-12
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.subjectCognitive Behavioural Therapyen_US
dc.subjectgynaecological canceren_US
dc.subjectcancer careen_US
dc.titleEvaluating process and effectiveness of a low-intensity CBT intervention for women with gynaecological cancer (the EPELIT Trial)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.eissn2517-6900en_US
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Chester; North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre; Ysbyty Gwynedd; Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridgeen_US
dc.identifier.journalAMRC Open Researchen_US
or.grant.openaccessYesen_US
rioxxterms.funderInternally fundeden_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectQR Grant, Hulbert-Williams NJ, 2017/18en_US
rioxxterms.versionAMen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-03-03
rioxxterms.publicationdate2021-03-29


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
EPELIT.pdf
Size:
642.2Kb
Format:
PDF
Request:
Main article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International