Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:32:16.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recruitment and retention of palliative cancer patients and their partners participating in a longitudinal evaluation of a psychosocial retreat program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2009

Sheila N. Garland ,
Linda E. Carlson ,
Hubert Marr  and
Steve Simpson
Sheila N. Garland
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Department of Psychosocial Resources, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Linda E. Carlson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial Resources, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Hubert Marr
Affiliation:
Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Division of Palliative Care, Calgary Health Region, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Steve Simpson*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychosocial Resources, Tom Baker Cancer Center, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Steve Simpson, Alberta Cancer Board - Holy Cross Site, Department of Psychosocial Resources, 2202 2nd St. S.W., Calgary, AB T2S 3C1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

The negative impact of a palliative cancer diagnosis on the quality of life of patients and their partners is well documented. Unfortunately, research on interventions to improve psychological and spiritual well-being of these couples has been considered impractical because of the deleterious influence of disease progression on participation. This study evaluated the feasibility of offering the Tapestry Retreat, an intensive psychosocial intervention for palliative care patients and their partners.

Methods:

Participants in the Tapestry Retreat included 15 patients with advanced breast, prostate, or colon cancer and their partners (n = 30). Also included was a natural history group consisting of 20 patients and their partners (n = 40). All couples completed questionnaires related to quality of life, distress, marital satisfaction, and existential concerns at baseline, after the retreat or 1 month after baseline, and then again at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

Results:

Patients in the Tapestry group were significantly more likely to be women who had received prior psychological support and were less comfortable with their finances. Partners attending the Tapestry retreat were also more likely to have received prior psychological support.

Significance of results:

Despite issues with recruitment and retention, retreat participation was considered feasible. Recommendations for future research are discussed.

Keywords

RecruitmentCancerPalliativeCouplesRetreatPsychosocial
Type
Original Articles
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 49 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Angen, M.J., MacRae, J.H., Simpson, J.S., et al. (2002). Tapestry: A retreat program of support for persons living with cancer. Cancer Practice, 10, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angen, M.J., Simpson, J.S., MacRae, H., et al. (2003). Impact of a residential psychosocial program for cancer patients: A focus group investigation. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine, 19, 24–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Axelsson, B. & Sjoden, P.O. (1998). Quality of life of cancer patients and their spouses in palliative home care. Palliative Medicine, 12, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanchard, C.G., Albrecht, T.L., & Ruckdeschel, J.C. (1997). The crisis of cancer: Psychological impact on family caregivers. Oncology, 11, 189–194.Google ScholarPubMed
Carlson, L.E., Ottenbreit, N. St., Pierre, M., et al. (2001). Partner understanding of the breast and prostate cancer experience. Cancer Nursing, 24, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casarett, D.J. & Karlawish, J.H. (2000). Are special ethical guidelines needed for palliative care research? Journal of Pain and Sympton Management, 20, 130–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M.L., Chu, L., & Chen, H.C. (2004). Impact of cancer patients’ quality of life on that of spouse caregivers. Supportive Care in Cancer, 12, 469–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, C.Y., Manne, S.L., & Pape, S.J. (2001). Functional impairment, marital quality, and patient psychological distress as predictors of psychological distress among cancer patients’ spouses. Health Psychology, 20, 452–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, D.A., Sheppard, V.B., Mangan, P.A., et al. (2006). Caregiving at the end of life: Perceptions of health care quality and quality of life among patients and caregivers. Journal of Pain and Sympton Management, 31, 407–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, C., Norton, L., Wagstaff, G., et al. (2002). Existential concerns in late stage cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 6, 243–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, P. (2004). A critical review of supportive interventions for family caregivers of patients with palliative-stage cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 22, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, S.S., Chang, V.T., Fairclough, D.L., et al. (2003). Longitudinal quality of life in advanced cancer patients: Pilot study results from a VA medical cancer center. Journal of Pain and Sympton Management, 25, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, A.B., Herndon, J.E., Zuckerman, E., et al. (2001). The impact of docetaxel, estramustine, and low dose hydrocortisone on the quality of life of men with hormone refractory prostate cancer and their partners: A feasibility study. Annals of Oncology, 12, 633–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, L.M. & Jones, J.M. (2007). A review of distress and its management in couples facing end-of-life cancer. Psychooncology, 16, 603–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newell, S.A., Sanson-Fisher, R.W., & Savolainen, N.J. (2002). Systematic review of psychological therapies for cancer patients: Overview and recommendations for future research. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94, 558–584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Northouse, L.L., Mood, D., Kershaw, T., et al. (2002). Quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family members. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20, 4050–4064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remen, R. (1995). Tradecraft of the Commonweal Cancer Help Program. Bolinas, CA: Institute for the Study of Health and Illness at Commonweal.Google Scholar
Rinck, G., van den Bos, G.A., Kleijnen, J., et al. (1997). Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15, 1697–1707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutledge, D.N. & Raymon, N.J. (2001). Changes in well-being of women cancer survivors following a survivor weekend experience. Oncology Nursing Forum, 28, 85–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Sherman, D.W., McSherry, C.B., Parkas, V., et al. (2005). Recruitment and retention in a longitudinal palliative care study. Applied Nursing Research, 18, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauser, K.E., Clipp, E.C., Hays, J.C., et al. (2006). Identifying, recruiting, and retaining seriously ill patients and their caregivers in longitudinal research. Palliative Medicine, 20, 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabora, J., Blanchard, C.G., Smith, E.D., et al. (1997). Prevalence of psychological distress amoung cancer patients across the disease continuum. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 15, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabora, J., BrintzenhofeSzoc, K., Curbow, B., et al. (2001). The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology, 10, 19–28.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed