CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157Cancer survivorship and careNursing care and researchFamily Support in Illness

Caregiver-assisted coping skills training for lung cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial

Open access
Porter, Laura S., Keefe, Francis J., Garst, Jennifer, Baucom, Donald H., McBride, Colleen M., McKee, Daphne C., Sutton, Linda, Carson, Kimberly +3 more·2011·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.04.014PMC PMC3010525
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Context Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers in the United States and is associated with high levels of symptoms, including pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and psychological distress. Caregivers and patients are adversely affected. However, previous studies of coping skills training (CST) interventions have not been tested in patients with lung cancer nor have systematically included caregivers.Objectives This study tested the efficacy of a caregiver-assisted CST protocol in a sample of patients with lung cancer.Methods Two hundred thirty-three lung cancer patients and their caregivers were randomly assigned to receive 14 telephone-based sessions of either caregiver-assisted CST or education/support involving the caregiver. Patients completed measures assessing pain, psychological distress, quality of life (QOL), and self-efficacy for symptom management; caregivers completed measures assessing psychological distress, caregiver strain, and self-efficacy for helping the patient manage symptoms.Results Patients in both treatment conditions showed improvements in pain, depression, QOL, and self-efficacy, and caregivers in both conditions showed improvements in anxiety and self-efficacy from baseline to four-month follow-up. Results of exploratory analyses suggested that the CST intervention was more beneficial to patients/caregivers with Stage II and III cancers, whereas the education/support intervention was more beneficial to patients/caregivers with Stage I cancer.Conclusion Taken together with the broader literature in this area, results from this study suggest that psychosocial interventions can lead to improvements in a range of outcomes for cancer patients. Suggestions for future studies include the use of three-group designs (e.g., comparing two active interventions with a standard-care control) and examining mechanisms of change.

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.jpainsymman.2010.04.014

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • The IGHE and SGHE arms were selected as active comparison groups to address possible non-specific intervention effects.

    “IGHE/SGHE were chosen as active comparison groups to address possible non-specific aspects of intervention effects based on our prior studies36–38.”

    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 [36]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes a comparison of two active treatment conditions and considers whether improvements reflected non-specific effects such as time and attention. But this paper studied coping-skills training versus education/support; it does not identify IGHE or SGHE or say those arms were selected for that purpose. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Sarna L Holland JC Lung cancer Psycho-oncology 1998 340 348 Oxford University Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Porter, L. S., Keefe, F. J., Garst, J., Baucom, D. H., McBride, C. M., McKee, D. C., Sutton, L., Carson, K., Knowles, V., Rumble, M., & Scipio, C.
Affiliations
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Porter, Laura S.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.04.014
PMC
PMC3010525
OpenAlex
W2025269556
Cited by
157
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 12
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01 CA91947)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
lung cancer, coping skills training, caregiver burden, psychological distress, pain, quality of life, self-efficacy, telephone-delivered intervention, psychosocial interventions, cancer symptom management
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Caregivers, Remote Consultation, 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