Cited by 84Cancer survivorship and careChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

A patient education program is effective in reducing cancer-related fatigue: A multi-centre randomised two-group waiting-list controlled intervention trial

Reif, Karl, de Vries, Ulrike, Petermann, Franz, Görres, Stefan·2013·European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract

Objective To evaluate a patient education program that aims at reducing perceived fatigue in cancer survivors.Methods In ten German centres, 261 patients with cancer-related fatigue were randomly assigned to a patient education program consisting of 6 sessions à 90 min or standard care. The primary outcome measure was cancer-related fatigue. Data were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures.Results Patients in the intervention group showed statistically significant reduction in cancer-related fatigue (F = 76.510, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.248). Secondary outcomes also showed significant improvements in all measures, including quality of life (F = 29.607, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.113), general self-efficacy (F = 27.680, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.107), exercise self-efficacy (F = 49.230, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.175), physical activity (F = 8.036, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.033), anxiety (F = 33.194, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.125), depression (F = 24.604, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.096), and fatigue knowledge (F = 55.157, p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.192).Conclusion The program was effective in reducing perceived fatigue as well as further outcomes.Practice implications This newly developed education program has the potential to fill a gap in the care of cancer survivors. The program needs further evaluation in other countries employing a control group of patients receiving equal time and attention as the intervention group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.07.002

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reif, K., de Vries, U., Petermann, F., & Görres, S.
Affiliations
University of Bremen (DE)
Venue
European Journal of Oncology Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
204-213
ISSN
1462-3889 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2041179225
Cited by
83
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
cancer-related fatigue, patient education, cancer survivors, quality of life, self-efficacy, exercise self-efficacy, physical activity, anxiety, depression, psycho-oncology
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Fatigue, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Patient Education as Topic, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Program Evaluation, Survivors, Self Efficacy

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