Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Psychosocial Assessment Using Telehealth in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Partially Randomized Patient Preference Pilot Study.


ABSTRACT:

Background

Adolescent and young adults with cancer are at increased risk of psychosocial difficulties relative to their healthy peers. Current models of inpatient face-to-face psychosocial care might limit the capacity for clinicians to provide timely and personalized assessment and intervention for this group. Telehealth offers a promising alternative toward increasing access to the provision of evidence-based psychosocial assessment and treatment for adolescent and young adults with cancer.

Objective

This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability for both patients and clinicians of providing a psychosocial assessment via telehealth to adolescents and young adults currently receiving treatment for cancer, relative to face-to-face delivery.

Methods

We included patients who were aged 15-25 years, currently receiving treatment, could speak English well, and medically stable. Patients were recruited from oncology clinics or wards from 5 hospitals located across Sydney and Canberra, Australia, and allocated them to receive psychosocial assessment (Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Psychosocial Assessment Measure) with a clinical psychologist or social worker through face-to-face or telehealth modalities using a partially randomized patient preference model. Patients completed a pre- and postassessment questionnaire comprising validated and purposely designed feasibility and acceptability indices, including the impact of technical difficulties, if patients had their own devices; number of patients who were content with their group allocation; self-reported preference of modality; Treatment Credibility and Expectations Questionnaire; and Working Alliance Inventory. Clinicians also completed a postassessment questionnaire rating their impressions of the acceptability and feasibility of intervention delivery by each modality.

Results

Of 29 patients approached, 23 consented to participate (response rate: 79%). Participants were partially randomized to either telehealth (8/23, 35%; mean age 16.50 years, range 15-23 years; females: 4/8, 50%) or face-to-face (11/23, 62%; mean age 17 years, range 15-22 years; females: 8/11, 72%) conditions. Four participants withdrew consent because of logistical or medical complications (attrition rate: 17.4%). Most participants (6/8, 75%) in the telehealth group used their computer or iPad (2 were provided with an iPad), with minor technical difficulties occurring in 3 of 8 (37.5%) assessments. Participants in both groups rated high working alliance (Working Alliance Inventory; median patient response in the telehealth group, 74, range 59-84 and face-to-face group, 63, range 51-84) and reported positive beliefs regarding the credibility and expectations of their treatment group. Postassessment preferences between face-to-face or telehealth modalities varied. Most patients in the telehealth group (5/8, 63%) reported no preference, whereas 6 of 11 (55%) in the face-to-face group reported a preference for the face-to-face modality.

Conclusions

Telehealth is acceptable as patient comfort was comparable across modalities, with no significant technological barriers experienced. However, patients varied in their preferred interview modality, highlighting the need to tailor the treatment to patient preference and circumstances.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001142628; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366609 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/721889HpE).

SUBMITTER: Chalmers JA 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6135966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

| 2373373 | ecrin-mdr-crc
| S-EPMC6895868 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8572401 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4837163 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8568181 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3563133 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC8240028 | biostudies-literature
2022-02-12 | GSE196490 | GEO
| S-EPMC9588254 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6915330 | biostudies-literature