National study of chronic disease self-management: 6-month and 12-month findings among cancer survivors and non-cancer survivors
Open accessAbstract
Objective: This study examined the applicability of the Stanford Chronic Disease Self‐Management Program (CDSMP) for cancer survivors and compared outcomes among cancer survivors and participants with other chronic diseases (non‐cancer survivors). Methods: Participants were older adults (n = 1170) enrolled in the National Study of CDSMP. Detailed information about physical and psychosocial health status and health and healthcare behaviors was collected from participants (n = 116 cancer survivors and n = 1054 non‐cancer survivors) via self‐report before CDSMP participation and at 6‐month and 12‐month follow‐ups. Linear and generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline‐to‐6‐month and baseline‐to‐12‐month changes. Results: Among cancer survivors, general health, depression, and sleep significantly improved from baseline to 6 months. These significant changes were sustained at 12 months. Communication with physician, medication compliance, pain, days in poor physical health, days in poor mental health, and days kept from usual activities and physical activity also improved significantly from baseline to 12 months. Among non‐cancer survivors, all outcomes except medication compliance and stress improved significantly from baseline to 6 months. At 12 months, medication compliance also improved significantly. Conclusions: Findings suggest that participation in CDSMP, an evidence‐based chronic disease self‐management intervention not specifically tailored for cancer survivorship, may significantly improve physical and psychosocial health status and key health and healthcare behaviors among cancer survivors. Additional research is needed to elucidate cancer survivors' unique needs and examine the benefits of tailored versions of CDSMP. Nevertheless, CDSMP, available at scale nationally and internationally, is a promising intervention for cancer survivors and should be considered a valuable component of survivorship care. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Improvements in self-efficacy, knowledge, and activation are likely necessary for improvements in outcomes such as QOL and healthcare resource use.
“Improvements in self-efficacy, knowledge, and activation are likely necessary for improvements in other key outcomes such as QOL and healthcare resource use. The current evidence on self-management models of care supports this concept.”
From A Multimedia Self-management Intervention to Prepare Cancer Patients and Family Caregivers for Lung Surgery and Postoperative Recovery (2017) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Adler NE, Page AEK (eds.). Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Psychosocial Services to Cancer Patients/Families in a Community Setting. Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs. National Academies Press (US): Washington (DC), 2008. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/books/NBK4015/
- Risendal BC, Dwyer A, Lorig K, Seidel RW, Coombs L, Ory MG. Meeting the public health challenge of cancer survivorship: results of the evaluation of the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) for cancer survivors. Front Public Health. In press. *Correspondence to: College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 801 NE 13th Street, Room 417, PO Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73126-0901, USA. E-mail: alicia- salvatore@ouhsc.edu
- Authors
- Salvatore, A. L., Ahn, S., Jiang, L., Lorig, K., & Ory, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
- Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Salvatore, Alicia L.
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-14
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1714-1722
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W2115407540
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- escholarship.org
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through the Administration on Aging
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Keywords
- chronic disease self-management, cancer survivors, survivorship care, older adults, depression, sleep, medication adherence, physical activity, pain, psychosocial health, health behavior
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Chronic Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Self Care, United States, Program Evaluation, Survivors, Self Report, Patient Outcome Assessment
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