Project overview
Abstract
Background: PROACTIVE is a psycho-educational support intervention for prostate cancer patients managed on Active Surveillance. PROACTIVE is composed of two interdependent components: group workshops and internet-delivered information modules.
Aims: We conducted a feasibility study to determine the practicality of delivering PROACTIVE at two prostate cancer centres.
Methods and Results: The feasibility study was a mixed-methods randomized parallel-group exploratory trial. Participants were randomised using a ratio of 3:1 PROACTIVE group to treatment as usual. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and quantitative measures were completed at baseline, intervention completion (week 6), and at 6-month follow-up. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to examine recruitment and retention rates and changing trends in outcome measures. Most aspects of the research design and PROACTIVE intervention were acceptable to those participating in the study. In particular, participants valued the opportunity to share and discuss experiences with other prostate cancer patients on Active Surveillance and receive detailed authoritative information. However, three issues were identified: (a) a low response rate (13 participants recruited, response rate 16%), (b) low utilisation of internet delivered information modules, (c) self-perceived low levels of anxiety amongst participants with the majority perceiving their cancer as not impacting on their day-to-day life or causing anxiety.
Background: PROACTIVE is a psycho-educational support intervention for prostate cancer patients managed on Active Surveillance. PROACTIVE is composed of two interdependent components: group workshops and internet-delivered information modules.
Aims: We conducted a feasibility study to determine the practicality of delivering PROACTIVE at two prostate cancer centres.
Methods and Results: The feasibility study was a mixed-methods randomized parallel-group exploratory trial. Participants were randomised using a ratio of 3:1 PROACTIVE group to treatment as usual. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and quantitative measures were completed at baseline, intervention completion (week 6), and at 6-month follow-up. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to examine recruitment and retention rates and changing trends in outcome measures. Most aspects of the research design and PROACTIVE intervention were acceptable to those participating in the study. In particular, participants valued the opportunity to share and discuss experiences with other prostate cancer patients on Active Surveillance and receive detailed authoritative information. However, three issues were identified: (a) a low response rate (13 participants recruited, response rate 16%), (b) low utilisation of internet delivered information modules, (c) self-perceived low levels of anxiety amongst participants with the majority perceiving their cancer as not impacting on their day-to-day life or causing anxiety.
Staff
Lead researcher
Other researchers
