Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-centered outcome evaluation of the Rural Breast Cancer Survivors Intervention

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-centered evaluation is a critical but often overlooked component of intervention research. The Rural Breast Cancer Survivors (RBCS) Intervention is a survivorship education and support intervention designed for rural breast cancer survivors. Here, we describe evaluation of the RBCS Intervention from the participants’ experience.

Methods

Three hundred sixty-four breast cancer survivors participating in the RBCS Intervention were asked to complete the RBCS Evaluation Survey that consisted of 6 quantitative statements and 12 qualitative questions via mail.

Results

Two hundred twenty-one participants (61 %) returned the RBCS Evaluation Survey. All 221 completed the qualitative component, and 91 (25 %) completed the quantitative. Overall, participants indicated that the education materials were easy to understand and addressed their quality of life concerns. Majority (94 %) indicated that the survivorship information was helpful in making health decisions and communicating concerns to family (87 % strongly agree/agree) and oncology team (88 % strongly agree/agree). Only 66 % indicated that the survivorship educational materials were provided at an appropriate time after completion of primary breast cancer treatment. Qualitative data suggested that participants had positive perceptions and experiences and found the RBCS Intervention helpful. One-on-one interaction with the intervention nurses was the single most highly valued aspect.

Conclusion

Overall, the RBCS Intervention was helpful. Education materials addressed quality of life concerns. Breast cancer survivors developed skills in communicating with their family and oncology team. Intervention nurses were identified as the most valuable aspect of the program. Suggestions include earlier timing of survivorship education and support, and adaptation using social media access to serve other rural survivors.

Relevance

Patient-centered evaluations, using both quantitative and qualitative data, provide enriched understanding of evidence-based survivorship interventions and should be considered a standard for future work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stufflebeam D (2001) Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation 2001: 7-98. doi:10.1002/ev.3

  2. Devine C, Brunson R, Jastran M, Bisogni C (2006) It just really clicked: participant-perceived outcomes of community nutrition education programs. J Nutr Educ Behav 38:42–49. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2005.11.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shek DT, Sun RC (2007) Subjective outcome evaluation of the project PATHS: qualitative findings based on the experiences of program participants. Sci World J 7:686–697. doi:10.1100/Tsw.2007.126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D (1998) The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 47:1351–1359. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00213-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams B (1994) Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Med 38:509–516. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90247-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Monninkhof E, van der Aa M, van der Valk P, van der Palen J, Zielhuis G, Koning K, Pieterse M (2004) A qualitative evaluation of a comprehensive self-management programme for COPD patients: effectiveness from the patients’ perspective. Patient Educ Couns 55:177–184. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2003.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shek DT, Wong KK (2010) Subjective outcome evaluation of the training program of the project P.A.T.H.S. Based on qualitative findings. Int J Adolesc Med Health 22:437–447. doi:10.1515/IJAMH.2010.22.3.437

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Meneses K, McNees P, Loerzel VW, Su X, Zhang Y, Hassey L (2007) Transition from treatment to survivorship: effects of a psychoeducational intervention on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum 34:1007–1016. doi:10.1188/07.ONF.1007-1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Galway K, Black A, Cantwell M, Cardwell CR, Mills M, Donnelly M (2012) Psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life and emotional wellbeing for recently diagnosed cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD007064. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007064.pub2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Breast Cancer Education Intervention (BCEi) on Research-tested Interventions website. National cancer institute and substance abuse and mental health services administration. http://rtips.cancer.gov/rtips/programDetails.do?programId=1416306. Accessed 15 August 2015

  11. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 89:1322–1327

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meneses K, McNees P, Azuero A, Loerzel VW, Su X, Hassey LA (2009) Preliminary evaluation of psychoeducational support interventions on quality of life in rural breast cancer survivors after primary treatment. Cancer Nurs 32:385–397. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181a850e6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Florida Department of Health (2007) Florida Vital Statistics Annual Report. Jacksonville, FL

  14. McNees P, Meneses K (2012) Index of Research Access: an estimate of travel accessibility for research. Nurs Res Rev 2012:67–73. doi:10.2147/NRR.S35436

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pisu M, Meneses K, Azuero A, Benz R, Su X, McNees P (2015) Variation in resources needed to implement psychosocial support interventions for rural breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. doi:10.1007/s11764-015-0483-6

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meneses K, Benz RL, Hassey LA, Yang ZQ, McNees MP (2013) Strategies to retain rural breast cancer survivors in longitudinal research. Appl Nurs Res 26:257–262. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2013.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS® Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp

  18. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Meneses K, Azuero A, Su X, Benz R, McNees P (2014) Predictors of attrition among rural breast cancer survivors. Res Nurs Health 37:21–31. doi:10.1002/nur.21576

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ashing K, Rosales M (2014) A telephonic-based trial to reduce depressive symptoms among Latina breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology 23:507–515. doi:10.1002/pon.3441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Badger TA, Segrin C, Hepworth JT, Pasvogel A, Weihs K, Lopez AM (2013) Telephone-delivered health education and interpersonal counseling improve quality of life for Latinas with breast cancer and their supportive partners. Psychooncology 22:1035–1042. doi:10.1002/pon.3101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Badger T, Segrin C, Pasvogel A, Lopez AM (2013) The effect of psychosocial interventions delivered by telephone and videophone on quality of life in early-stage breast cancer survivors and their supportive partners. J Telemed Telecare 19:260–265. doi:10.1177/1357633X13492289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Budin WC, Hoskins CN, Haber J, Sherman DW, Maislin G, Cater JR, Cartwright-Alcarese F, Kowalski MO, McSherry CB, Fuerbach R, Shukla S (2008) Breast cancer: education, counseling, and adjustment among patients and partners: a randomized clinical trial. Nurs Res 57:199–213. doi:10.1097/01.NNR.0000319496.67369.37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Crane-Okada R, Freeman E, Kiger H, Ross M, Elashoff D, Deacon L, Giuliano AE (2012) Senior peer counseling by telephone for psychosocial support after breast cancer surgery: effects at six months. Oncol Nurs Forum 39:78–89. doi:10.1188/12.ONF.78-89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bloom JR, Stewart SL, Chang S, You M (2006) Effects of a telephone counseling intervention on sisters of young women with breast cancer. Prev Med 43:379–384. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bowen DJ, Powers D (2010) Effects of a mail and telephone intervention on breast health behaviors. Health Educ Behav 37:479–489. doi:10.1177/1090198109348463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gotay CC, Moinpour CM, Unger JM, Jiang CS, Coleman D, Martino S, Parker BJ, Bearden JD, Dakhil S, Gross HM, Lippman S, Albain KS (2007) Impact of a peer-delivered telephone intervention for women experiencing a breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol 25:2093–2099. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.07.4674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oliver M, Nabi R (2004) Exploring the concept of media enjoyment: an introduction to the special issue. Commun Theory 14:285–287. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00315.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL, Laurent D, Hobbs M (2001) Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract 4:256–262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Tusler M (2009) Improving the outcomes of disease management by tailoring care to the patient's level of activation. Am J Manag Care 15:353–360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stanton AL, Ganz PA, Kwan L, Meyerowitz BE, Bower JE, Krupnick JL, Rowland JH, Leedham B, Belin TR (2005) Outcomes from the moving beyond cancer psychoeducational, randomized, controlled trial with breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 23:6009–6018. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.09.101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Council NR (2005) From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank our breast cancer survivor participants who gave generously of their time.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave S, MT 624, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Yu-Mei Schoenberger

  2. School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Rachel Benz & Karen Meneses

  3. School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Patrick McNees

  4. Kirchner Group, Birmingham, AL, 35242, USA

    Patrick McNees

Authors
  1. Yu-Mei Schoenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Benz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick McNees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen Meneses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-Mei Schoenberger.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Funding source

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01CA120638. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Disclosure

The Florida cancer incidence data used in this report were collected by the Florida Cancer Data System under contract with the Department of Health (DOH). The views expressed herein are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the contractor or DOH.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schoenberger, YM., Benz, R., McNees, P. et al. Patient-centered outcome evaluation of the Rural Breast Cancer Survivors Intervention. Support Care Cancer 24, 1841–1848 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2974-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-2974-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation