Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Effect of different...
  3. Effect of different forms of information produced for cancer patients on their use of the information, social support, and anxiety: randomised trial
Research

Effect of different forms of information produced for cancer patients on their use of the information, social support, and anxiety: randomised trial

BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38807.571042.68 (Published 20 April 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:942
  1. R B Jones, professor of health informatics (ray.jones{at}plymouth.ac.uk)1,
  2. J Pearson, research assistant2,
  3. A J Cawsey, senior lecturer in computing3,
  4. D Bental, research fellow3,
  5. A Barrett, professor of oncology4,
  6. J White, consultant clinical psychologist5,
  7. C A White, Macmillan consultant in psychosocial oncology6,
  8. W H Gilmour, senior lecturer in medical statistics2
  1. 1 Faculty of Health and Social Work, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA
  2. 2 Public Health & Health Policy Section, Division of Community Based Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
  3. 3 School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot Watt University, Riccarton Campus, Edinburgh
  4. 4 School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ
  5. 5 Greater Glasgow Primary Care NHS Trust, STEPS, Glasgow G42 8AT
  6. 6 NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Ayrshire Central Hospital, Irvine KA12 8SS
  1. Correspondence to: R Jones
  • Accepted 26 January 2006

Abstract

Objective To explore the hypothesis that different methods of selecting and printing information for cancer patients could improve emotional support by affecting interaction with others, and so lead to improved psychological wellbeing.

Design Randomised trial with eight groups (three factors, 2′2′2). Data collected at recruitment and three month follow-up.

Participants 400 patients starting radiotherapy, of whom 325 with breast or prostate cancer and complete anxiety and depression data were included in the analysis.

Interventions Printed booklets: half had only general information from CancerBACUP about each patient's cancer and half had personalised information from the patient's medical record plus selected general information; half were composed of information chosen interactively by the patient and half were produced automatically with a larger volume of material; and half had additional advice on anxiety management and half did not.

Main outcome measures Patients' views of the information, use of their booklets with others; change in reported social support; change in anxiety and depression.

Results The larger booklets produced automatically were more likely to be found useful and to tell patients something new and less likely to be seen as too limited than the booklets produced interactively, but they were also more likely to overwhelm some patients. Personalised booklets were more likely than general booklets to tell patients something new. There was no difference in patients' perceived understanding of their cancer by any of the intervention factors. Patients with personalised information were more likely to show their booklets to others and to think it helped in discussing their cancer or its treatment. There were no major differences in social support, anxiety, or depression by any intervention factors.

Conclusions Patients were more likely to show personalised information to their confidants than general information. Further research is needed into the effects of sharing information on patients' social support and anxiety.

Trial registration US Government Clinical Trials Database NCT00127465

Footnotes

  • Embedded ImageAppendices 1-10, providing further information about the study, are on bmj.com

    We thank the patients who helped with the study; Joanna Rule for permission for the use of CancerBACUP booklets; Anna Leibowitz and others at CancerBACUP for comments on the study, radiographers and all other colleagues at the Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow; colleagues at the University of Plymouth who commented on the paper; colleagues on email lists who visited our website (www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~diana/paccit/index.htm) and commented on the study design; and Anne Anderson and the PACCIT programme (www.paccit.gla.ac.uk/) for support.

  • Contributors RBJ was the principal applicant for funding, led the design and management of the study and the analysis of the data, and wrote the paper. JP contributed to the design of the study, was responsible for all data collection and day to day management of the study, helped with the analysis, and edited the paper. AJC was second applicant for funding, contributed to the design of the study, helped in the development of the computer system, commented on the analysis, and edited the paper. DB was responsible for the development of the computer system and edited the paper. AB was third applicant for funding, contributed to the design, was responsible for arranging access and clinical support, commented on the analysis, and edited the paper. JW was fourth applicant for funding, contributed to the design, was responsible (with CAW) for the development of the anxiety management advice, and edited the paper. CAW contributed to the design, was responsible (with JW) for the development of the anxiety management advice, and edited the paper. WHG contributed to the design, advised on the analysis, and edited the paper. Neil Craig contributed to the design (an economic analysis was planned) and commented on the paper, but, as the economic analysis was not considered worth while, he is not included as an author.

  • Funding This study was funded by the ESRC/EPSRC People at the Centre of Communication and Information Technology (PACCIT) programme (Grant number L328253024).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethical approval The Western Local Research Ethics Committee approved the study.

View Full Text
Back to top