Cited by 14Cancer survivorship and carePosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchDigital Mental Health Interventions

A SMART approach to optimizing delivery of an mHealth intervention among cancer survivors with posttraumatic stress symptoms

Open access
Smith, Sophia K., Somers, Tamara J., Kuhn, Eric, Laber, Eric, Sung, Anthony D., Syrjala, Karen L., Feger, Bryan, Kelleher, Sarah A. +5 more·2021·Contemporary Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background/aims Many cancer survivors who received intensive treatment such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. PTSD is associated with lower quality of life and other symptoms that require clinical treatment. The iterative treatment decisions that happen in clinical practice are not adequately represented in traditional randomized controlled trials (RCT) of PTSD treatments. The proposed stepped-care SMART design allows for evaluation of initial response to the Cancer Distress Coach mobile app; adaptive stepped-care interventions; and precision treatment strategies that tailor treatment selection to patient characteristics.Methods/design HCT survivors (N = 400) reporting PTSD symptoms are being recruited at two cancer centers and randomly assigned to: 1) Cancer Distress Coach app or 2) Usual Care. The app includes educational and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based activities. Four weeks post-randomization, participants re-rate their PTSD symptoms and, based on intervention response, non-responders are re-randomized to receive video-conferenced sessions with a therapist: 3) coaching sessions in using the mobile app; or 4) CBT specific to HCT survivors. Participants complete outcome measures of PTSD, depression, and anxiety after Months 1, 3, and 6. Participant characteristics moderating intervention responses will be examined.Conclusions This novel adaptive trial design will afford evidence that furthers knowledge about optimizing PTSD interventions for HCT survivors. To our knowledge, this study is the first SMART design evaluating PTSD symptom management in cancer survivors. If successful, it could be used to optimize treatment among a range of cancer and other trauma survivors.

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 · 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106569

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Adherence to intervention protocols is rated for 20% of randomly selected sessions, with a session-level adherence criterion of at least 90%.

    “Ratings of adherence to the intervention protocols are made for 20% of randomly selected sessions. Criteria for protocol adherence is defined for each session as a score of ≥90% on an adherence rating scale39–41.”

    From Improving well-being for individuals with persistent pain after surgery for breast cancer, lobular carcinoma in situ, or ductal carcinoma in situ: A randomized clinical trial (2022) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Methods > Measures > Interventionist Adherence passage (page not provided) says 20% of mCoaching calls are randomly selected for fidelity checks and adherence ratings. It does not specify a ≥90% session-level criterion; it also says mCBT ratings initially cover 50% of sessions, falling to 20% after the first year. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, S. K., Somers, T. J., Kuhn, E., Laber, E., Sung, A. D., Syrjala, K. L., Feger, B., Kelleher, S. A., Majestic, C., Gebert, R., LeBlanc, M., Owen, J. E., & Applebaum, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • Duke Clinical Research Institute (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Sophia K.
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
110
Pages
106569
ISSN
1551-7144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199445527
Cited by
14
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (1R01-CA244172)
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, cancer survivors, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, mobile health intervention, mobile application, stepped care, adaptive trial design, precision therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, anxiety, trauma survivors
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Adaptive Clinical Trials as Topic, Anxiety, Humans, Neoplasms, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Telemedicine

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