Adaptation of Ca-HELP Intervention in Rural Geriatric Cancer Patient Population

Not Applicable

Completed

Conditions: Pain

Interventions: Behavioral: Adapted Ca-HELP for Geriatric Cancer Patients

Registration Number: NCT04262232

Lead Sponsor: Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Brief Summary: The Cancer Health Empowerment for Living without Pain (Ca-HELP) is an evidence-based communication tool that empowers and engages patients to communicate effectively with their physicians about pain. The Ca-HELP intervention is rooted in social-cognitive theory which posits that behavior change and maintenance depends largely on individuals' ability and self-efficacy to execute a specific behavior. Ca-HELP coaches patients to ask questions, make requests, and signal distress to their physicians in order to achieve improved pain control. Previous research indicates significant improvement among cancer patients in their self-efficacy to communicate about their pain to their oncologists and reductions in pain misconceptions and pain-related impairment. Although a promising tool among geriatric cancer patients, Ca-HELP is not currently designed for optimal dissemination in rural settings.

Detailed Description: Overall study objective:

The objectives of this Stage I pilot study are to 1) adapt Ca-HELP for use in rural settings, and 2) inform research and trial design choices by engaging community partners. Following the completion of formative tasks about this adaptive design approach, investigators will conduct an open trial to test the feasibility and acceptability of methods and procedures for later use on a large scale R01-level RCT.

Specific Aims:

Aim 1: To adapt the Ca-HELP intervention for use with older adults with cancer in rural settings. This intervention adaptation will be informed by: (1) social-cognitive theory;12,13 (2) mixed methods analysis; and (3) semi-structured interviews from key stakeholder groups including patients, caregivers, and providers and hospital administration staff in rural clinic settings.

Aim 2: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the adapted Ca-HELP intervention among older adults with cancer in rural clinic settings.

Hypothesis 2a: To evaluate feasibility, ≥70% of participants will meet the benchmark for feasibility defined by participant retention and adherence to the intervention.

Hypothesis 2b: To evaluate acceptability, ≥70% of participants will meet the benchmark for acceptability defined by responses on self-report measures of perceived helpfulness, satisfaction, and impact.

Aim 3: To test the preliminary efficacy of the Ca-HELP intervention adaptation on older adults with cancer to improve pain self-management (primary outcome) as well as pain misconceptions; self-efficacy to communicate with their physicians regarding pain severity, pain-related impairment, and pain severity (secondary outcomes).

Hypothesis 3: We hypothesize that the intervention will reduce patients' pain misconceptions, pain-related impairment, and pain severity and improve pain self-management and self-efficacy to communicate about pain with their physicians.

For Aim 1, investigators will collect feedback from older adults with cancer (n=10 patients), their caregivers (n=10), and providers and staff working in rural clinic settings (n=10) to determine the appropriateness of this intervention framework and best methods for implementation (e.g., in person health coach, telephone-based, etc.). Following these formative tasks, Aims 2 and 3 will be achieved through an open trial in rural Tennessee to test the intervention with n=30 older (65 years+) cancer patients in rural clinics and assess outcomes at baseline, post-intervention, and three months post-intervention.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 30

Inclusion Criteria

65 years of age or older
Diagnosed with cancer
English speaking
Reside in non-institutional, rural settings
Receive care at community-based clinic in rural area
Ability to provide informed consent
Have identified an informal caregiver.

Patient

Exclusion Criteria

Severe cognitively impairment (Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire scores of <6);
Receiving hospice at time of enrollment.

Caregiver eligibility criteria include the following

The person (family member or friend) whom the patient indicates provides most of their informal care
Able to provide informed consent.

Provider eligibility criteria:

-Currently works with geriatric cancer patients OR in a healthcare system serving this patient population. Providers will include social workers, nurses, oncologists, and healthcare administrators.

Study & Design

Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL

Study Design: SINGLE_GROUP

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Ca-HELP	Adapted Ca-HELP for Geriatric Cancer Patients	This intervention arm will consist of six components: (1) Assessment of current knowledge, attitudes, and preferences; (2) clarification and correction of misconceptions about cancer pain control; (3) teaching of relevant concepts (education about cancer pain control); (4) planning (identifying goals of care, creating achievable goals of care, and creating strategies to communicate goals of care to providers and family members); (5) rehearsal of communication strategies using role play exercises; and (6) portrayal of learned skills (patient applies skills in visit with healthcare provider).

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Acceptability (Aim 2), as Measured by Helpfulness	Two weeks post-intervention	Likert scale item assessing perceived helpfulness. Likert scale from 1 (not at all helpful) to 5 (very helpful), with 5 indicating higher levels of acceptability.
Feasibility (Aim 2), as Measured by Number of Subjects to Complete the Intervention	Two weeks post-intervention	Number of subjects to complete intervention
Change in Pain Self-management (Aim 3)	Baseline, two weeks post-intervention	Two items from the pain management subscale of the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy scale. Items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all certain and 5 = extremely certain). Scores range from 2 (low self-management) to 10 (high self-management).
Acceptability (Aim 2), as Measured by Qualitative Feedback	Two weeks post-intervention	Semi-structured interview assessing perceived satisfaction, helpfulness, usability, and readability. This interview will be coded qualitatively for themes that assess these components for assessment of overall acceptability. Qualitative data was analyzed as number of subjects endorsing specific themes. Themes around usability and readability did not emerge from the semi-structured interviews, thus no data on usability or readability were available to analyze.
Feasibility (Aim 2), as Measured by Number of Subjects Accrued to the Study	Two weeks post-intervention	Number of subjects accrued
Acceptability (Aim 2), as Measured by Readability	Two weeks post-intervention	Yes/no items assessing perceived readability (wording was too complicated, ideas were too complicated, there was too much information, there was not enough information). Individual items will be summed to create a total readability score. Scores can range from 0 (no issues/ good readability) to 4 (poor readability). \*Note these questions were only answered among participants who indicated that the intervention content was difficult to understand (eg, poor usability) by scoring \>1 on the 1 to 5 Likert-scale of usability.
Acceptability (Aim 2), as Measured by Usability	Two weeks post-intervention	Likert scale item assessing perceived usability by assessing how difficult the intervention content was to understand. Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The item was reverse scored so that 5 indicates higher levels of acceptability.
Acceptability (Aim 2), as Measured by Satisfaction	Two weeks post-intervention	Likert scale item assessing perceived satisfaction. Likert scale from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), with 5 indicating higher levels of acceptability.
Change in Pain Misconceptions (Aim 3)	Baseline, two weeks post-intervention	Assessed using the 11 items based on the short version of the Barriers Questionnaire. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=disagree very much, 5=agree very much). Scores range from 1 (low misconception) to 5 (high misconception) as an average across all 11 items.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Change in Self-efficacy for Communicating With Physicians About Pain Severity	Baseline, two weeks post-intervention	Assessed using the 5-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scale as modified to refer to communication with oncologists. Items are rated on a five-point Likert scale (1=not at all confident, 5 = very confident). Scores range from 5 (low self-efficacy) to 25 (high self-efficacy).
Change in Pain Severity	Baseline, two weeks post-intervention	Assessed as the mean of the average and worst pain over the past two weeks on a 0 to 10 scale (0 = no pain and 10 = worst pain imaginable).
Treatment Fidelity as Measured by Number of Subjects for Which the Intervention Was Delivered With Fidelity	Two weeks post-intervention	Treatment fidelity will be assessed with a checklist that captures whether session content was delivered and appropriate techniques were utilized.
Change in Pain-related Impairment	Baseline, two weeks post-intervention	Measured using the 6-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Pain Impairment Scale. Items are rated on a five-point likert scale (1=not at all, 5 = extremely). Scores can range from 6 (low pain impairment) to 30 (high pain impairment).