Cited by 56Cancer survivorship and careHead and Neck Cancer StudiesNursing care and research

Self‐management intervention for head and neck cancer couples: Results of a randomized pilot trial

Open access
Badr, Hoda, Herbert, Krista, Chhabria, Karishma, Sandulache, Vlad C., Chiao, Elizabeth Y., Wagner, Timothy·2019·Cancer

Abstract

Background: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) experience significant physical and psychological morbidity during radiotherapy (RT) that contributes to treatment interruptions and a poor quality of life. Although spouses/partners can help by encouraging patient self‐management (eg, self‐care) during RT, they often experience high psychological distress rates, lack basic health care knowledge and skills, and report increased marital conflict regarding patient self‐management. The current pilot study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a 6‐session telephone‐based intervention called S pouses coping with the H ead A nd neck R adiation E xperience (SHARE), which teaches self‐management, communication, and coping skills to patients with HNC and their spouses. The treatment effects of SHARE compared with usual medical care (UMC) in controlling patient physical symptoms and improving patient/spouse psychological and marital functioning also were examined. Methods: Thirty patients who initiated RT and their spouses (60 participants; 40% of whom were racial/ethnic minorities) were randomized to SHARE or UMC, and preintervention and postintervention assessments were completed. Results: Solid recruitment (70%) and low attrition rates (7%) demonstrated feasibility. Strong program evaluations and homework completion rates (72%) supported acceptability. Significant treatment effects (medium in magnitude) were observed for SHARE compared with UMC with regard to HNC‐specific physical symptom burden (Cohen’s d , ‐0.89) and symptom interference (Cohen’s d , ‐0.86). Medium to large effects favoring SHARE also were found for patient and spouse depressive symptoms (Cohen’s d , ‐0.84) and cancer‐specific distress (Cohen’s d , ‐1.05). Conclusions: The findings of the current study support the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of SHARE. They also suggest that programs that empower HNC couples with the necessary skills to coordinate care and manage the challenges of RT together hold great promise for controlling a patient’s physical symptoms and improving the psychological functioning of both partners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.31906

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]Jansma J, Vissink A, Spijkervet F, Protocol for the prevention and treatment of oral sequelae resulting from head and neck radiation therapy. Cancer. 1992; 70: 2171– 2180. 1394048
  2. [8]Vissink A, Burlage F, Spijkervet F, Jansma J, Coppes R. Prevention and treatment of the consequences of head and neck radiotherapy. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine. 2003; 14: 213. 12799324
  3. [20]Schulz R, Tomkins C. Informal Caregivers in the United States: Prevalence, Caregiver Characteristics, and Ability to Provide Care National Research Council (US) Committee on the Role of Human Factors in Home Health Care: Workshop Summary. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 2010: 117– 144. 24983032

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Badr, H., Herbert, K., Chhabria, K., Sandulache, V. C., Chiao, E. Y., & Wagner, T.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Rowan University (US)
Corresponding author
Badr, Hoda
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-06
Volume
125
Issue
7
Pages
1176-1184
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2904734110
Cited by
56
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R21CA178478, P30CA125123)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
head and neck cancer, radiotherapy, self-management interventions, spouses, telephone-delivered intervention, marital functioning, depressive symptoms, cancer-specific distress, physical symptom burden, coping strategies, communication skills, feasibility and acceptability, racial and ethnic minorities
MeSH terms
Self-Management, Psychological Distress, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Combined Modality Therapy, Feasibility Studies, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Radiotherapy, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Telephone, Spouses, Family Conflict, Young Adult, Chemoradiotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review