Trial Outcomes & Findings for Nueva Vida Intervention for Latina Breast Cancer Survivors and Caregivers (NCT NCT02222337)
NCT ID: NCT02222337
Last Updated: 2019-06-03
Results Overview
Measure Quality of Life physical functioning; 6 items; Sum and then use IRT to standardize the score. Mean of 50; SD of 10. Range of the raw score = 6-28; A higher score = higher physical functioning
COMPLETED
NA
272 participants
6 months
2019-06-03
Participant Flow
We reconciled the prior enrollment number in the Protocol Section (i.e., "272") that had conflicted with the number of participants started in the Participant Flow module (i.e., "270"). The discrepancy was because two participants enrolled but withdrew prior to the baseline interview. We thus did not have any data on these 2 participants.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Nueva Vida Intervention
Nueva Vida Intervention consists of 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
Nueva Vida Intervention: The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Usual Care
Usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
140
|
132
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
114
|
108
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
26
|
24
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Nueva Vida Intervention
n=140 Participants
Nueva Vida Intervention consists of 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
Nueva Vida Intervention: The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Usual Care
n=130 Participants
Usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Total
n=270 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
Survivors · <=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Age, Categorical
Survivors · Between 18 and 65 years
|
59 Participants
n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
56 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
115 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Age, Categorical
Survivors · >=65 years
|
10 Participants
n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
9 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
19 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Age, Categorical
Caregivers · <=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=67 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=63 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=130 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Age, Categorical
Caregivers · Between 18 and 65 years
|
61 Participants
n=67 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
57 Participants
n=63 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
118 Participants
n=130 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Age, Categorical
Caregivers · >=65 years
|
6 Participants
n=67 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
6 Participants
n=63 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
12 Participants
n=130 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Survivors · Female
|
70 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
65 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
135 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Survivors · Male
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Caregivers · Female
|
42 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
38 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
80 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Caregivers · Male
|
28 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
27 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
55 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Hispanic or Latino
|
70 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
65 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
135 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Not Hispanic or Latino
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Hispanic or Latino
|
69 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
64 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
133 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Not Hispanic or Latino
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
1 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
1 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Unknown or Not Reported
|
1 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
1 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Asian
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Black or African American
|
3 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
5 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
8 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · White
|
22 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
17 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
39 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · More than one race
|
28 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
31 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
59 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Survivors · Unknown or Not Reported
|
17 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
11 Participants
n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
28 Participants
n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Asian
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
0 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Black or African American
|
0 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
1 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
1 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · White
|
19 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
21 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
40 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · More than one race
|
25 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
22 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
47 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers · Unknown or Not Reported
|
26 Participants
n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
21 Participants
n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
47 Participants
n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Satisfaction with Care Experience of Care and Health Outcomes (ECHOS-NHL)
|
33.68 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.87 • n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
34.35 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.88 • n=63 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
34 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.41 • n=132 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Self-Efficacy - Survivors Only - Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI)
|
100.07 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 21.28 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
101.60 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.11 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
100.81 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 20.2 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
Communication - Patient Satisfaction with Care (PSQ-18 Communication Subscale)
|
2.28 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.91 • n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
2.28 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.93 • n=64 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
2.28 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.92 • n=133 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Anxiety
Survivors
|
54.3 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.97 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
52.94 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.95 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
53.65 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.59 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Anxiety
Caregivers
|
51.9 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.76 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
50.35 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.26 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
51.15 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.52 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Depression
Survivors
|
51.35 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.11 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
48.22 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.52 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
49.84 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.01 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Depression
Caregivers
|
46.72 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.32 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
45.10 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.24 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
45.94 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.82 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Fatigue
Survivors
|
52.95 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.03 • n=68 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
49.57 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.99 • n=63 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
51.33 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.61 • n=131 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Fatigue
Caregivers
|
45.12 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.24 • n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
44.14 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.95 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
44.64 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.61 • n=134 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Physical Functioning
Survivors
|
44.14 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.15 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
44.33 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.64 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
44.23 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.35 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Physical Functioning
Caregivers
|
53.71 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.54 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
53.72 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.14 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
53.72 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.32 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Satisfaction With Social Roles
Survivors
|
47.79 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.67 • n=69 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
48.99 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.71 • n=63 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
48.37 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.68 • n=132 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
|
PROMIS Satisfaction With Social Roles
Caregivers
|
55.18 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.09 • n=70 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
55.36 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.88 • n=65 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
55.27 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.96 • n=135 Participants • Baseline analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type. Thus, although there were 140 intervention participants and 130 usual care participants, these groups were separated further to be analyzed by survivor and caregiver status. Further, data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly.
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsPopulation: Cancer survivors
Measure Quality of Life physical functioning; 6 items; Sum and then use IRT to standardize the score. Mean of 50; SD of 10. Range of the raw score = 6-28; A higher score = higher physical functioning
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=51 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
n=57 Participants
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PROMIS Physical Functioning
|
44.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.71
|
53.82 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.34
|
45.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.20
|
52.99 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.70
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsMeasure Quality of Life satisfaction with social roles domain; 6 items; Sum and then use IRT to standardize the score. Mean of 50; SD of 10; Range of the raw score = 6-30; A higher score = higher satisfaction with social roles
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=51 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
n=57 Participants
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PROMIS Satisfaction With Social Roles
|
52.84 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.11
|
58.64 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.93
|
54.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.87
|
59.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.75
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsQuality of life: Anxiety; 6 items; Sum and then use IRT to standardize the score. Mean of 50; SD of 10. Range of the raw score = 6 to 30. A higher score = higher anxiety
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=51 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
n=57 Participants
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PROMIS Anxiety
|
53.93 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.04
|
48.41 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.61
|
50.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.99
|
48.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.76
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsQuality of life: depression; 6 items; Sum and then use IRT to standardize the score. Mean of 50; SD of 10. Range of the raw score = 6-30; A higher score = higher depression
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=51 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
n=57 Participants
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PROMIS Depression
|
47.43 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.46
|
43.95 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.16
|
47.35 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.13
|
44.49 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.48
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 monthsQuality of life: fatigue; 4 items; Sum and then use IRT to standardize the score. Mean of 50; SD of 10. Range of the raw score = 4-20; A higher score = higher fatigue
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=51 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
n=57 Participants
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
n=57 Participants
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PROMIS Fatigue
|
49.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.85
|
53.06 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.38
|
47.83 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.48
|
46.68 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.77
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6-monthsPopulation: Some participants passed away, withdrew, or were lost to follow up after baseline. Data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly. Analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type.
Communication with providers in terms of overall satisfaction with communication. Range for subscale is 1-5; higher scores indicate higher communication satisfaction.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=70 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=65 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Communication - Survivors Only - Patient Satisfaction With Care (PSQ-18 Communication Subscale)
|
3.52 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.94
|
3.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.69
|
—
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6 MonthsPopulation: Some participants passed away, withdrew, or were lost to follow up after baseline. Data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly. Analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type.
Self-efficacy; cancer survivors' confidence in coping with cancer and its treatment
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=70 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=65 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Self-Efficacy - Survivors Only - Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI)
|
106.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 19.59
|
107.96 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.35
|
—
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 6-monthsPopulation: Some participants passed away, withdrew, or were lost to follow up after baseline. Data was missing for certain measures; numbers analyzed are adjusted accordingly. Analysis was conducted by 1) randomization, and 2) participant type.
Satisfaction with health care received by the breast cancer survivor from her oncology health care providers or general health care providers
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Usual Care Survivors
n=70 Participants
Survivors randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Usual Care Caregivers
n=65 Participants
Caregivers randomized to usual care as provided by each of our 4 community-based organization partners. Usual care can include but is not limited to support groups, patient navigation, individual, couple or family therapy.
|
Nueva Vida Intervetion Survivors
Survivors randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
Nueva Vida Intervention Caregivers
Caregivers randomized to the Nueva Vida Intervention: 8 sessions of a skills-building group held twice a month for 4 months. Latina survivors and their caregivers arrive at the group together, separate into different rooms to learn the coping and communication skills, and then join together for discussion of the topic.
The psycho-educational format of the Nueva Vida Intervention is led by trained interventionists who have the survivors and caregivers go into different rooms to discuss the same topic. This format will allows them each to express their thoughts and feelings without inhibitions or concerns over how their survivor or their caregiver might respond. The topics for each wave of the intervention participants will be determined from a larger list of possible topics, with each group including the following core topics: Impact of Cancer on the Family, Spirituality and Cancer, Stress Management, Balancing Physical and Emotional Needs and Improving Communication.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Satisfaction With Care - Survivors Only - Experience of Care and Health Outcomes (ECHOS-NHL)
|
35.04 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.48
|
34.63 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.38
|
—
|
—
|
Adverse Events
Nueva Vida Intervention
Usual Care
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Kristi Graves, PhD
Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place