Efficacy of a Dyadic Cancer-related Communication Reinforcement Intervention
NCT ID: NCT03723122
Last Updated: 2018-12-04
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
64 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2017-07-03
Study Completion Date
2018-12-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Background: To face cancer-related stress, patients and caregivers activate individual and dyadic coping responses. Opened communication, adequate involvement, reciprocal supportive roles, self-disclosure and responsiveness enhance dyadic coping. Nevertheless, little is known about the optimal content of dyadic interventions designed to improve dyadic communication.
Methods: A randomized controlled trail was designed to assess the efficacy of a dyadic intervention centered on a cancer-related communication reinforcement. Patient-caregiver dyads are randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a waiting list group. Patients and caregivers complete self-reported scales that assessed emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping at baseline and post-treatment (intervention group), or 6 weeks after baseline (waiting list group). This dyadic communication reinforcement intervention (DCRI) consists of a weekly 4-session intervention. This intervention includes specific communication tasks aiming the improvement of some cancer-related dyadic communication competencies such as concerns disclosure and request for support.
Discussion: DCRI would lead to improvements in cancer-related dyadic communication self-efficacy, cancer-related dyadic communication satisfaction and dyadic coping.
Methods: A randomized controlled trail was designed to assess the efficacy of a dyadic intervention centered on a cancer-related communication reinforcement. Patient-caregiver dyads are randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a waiting list group. Patients and caregivers complete self-reported scales that assessed emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping at baseline and post-treatment (intervention group), or 6 weeks after baseline (waiting list group). This dyadic communication reinforcement intervention (DCRI) consists of a weekly 4-session intervention. This intervention includes specific communication tasks aiming the improvement of some cancer-related dyadic communication competencies such as concerns disclosure and request for support.
Discussion: DCRI would lead to improvements in cancer-related dyadic communication self-efficacy, cancer-related dyadic communication satisfaction and dyadic coping.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Enhanced Self-Efficacy Training
NCT00938769
Neoplasms
COMPLETED
NA
Study of a Behavioral Intervention for Older Advanced Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers
NCT05200572
Cancer, Advanced
Cognitive Impairment, Mild
COMPLETED
NA
Coping Together: Couple-based Interventions for Cancer
NCT04590885
Advanced Cancer
COMPLETED
NA
An Adaptive Dyadic Self-directed Coping and Self-management Skills Training Intervention for Caregivers of Individuals With Cancer
NCT04255030
Cancer
Anxiety
COMPLETED
NA
Family Caregiving Role Adjustment and Dyadic Mutuality
NCT02566174
Family Caregiver and Patient Mutual Negotiation of Roles and Responsibilities
COMPLETED
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
1. Aim of the trial: A randomized longitudinal study assessing the efficacy of a dyadic communication reinforcement intervention (DCRI) between cancer patients and their caregivers. Efficacy of the DCRI will be assessed by the analysis of changes over time in both patients and caregivers self-reported questionnaires/scales measures.
2. Participants: Patients and caregivers are recruited from oncology clinics at Erasme Hospital and Jules Bordet Institute (Brussels, Belgium). Recruitment and all study procedures were approved by a central ethics committee (Erasme - ULB Ethics Committee) and all participants are providing written informed consent.
3. Study Design: Participants are randomly assigned to the experimental group, consisting of the DCRI, or to the control group, consisting of a waiting list. Dyads in the waiting list can complete the DCRI after the last assessment if they want to. Investigator, psychologist in charge of the intervention and participants are blinded for this randomization. Dyads completed a follow-up assessment (T2), either 2 weeks after the DCRI in the experimental group or 6 weeks after baseline in the control condition. All assessment time were completed either at the outpatient clinic or at home.
4. DCRI content: DCRI aims communication reinforcement by a weekly 4-sessions program. DCRI is manualized and is conducted by an experienced psychologist (same psychologist for all participating dyads). Sessions focus on reciprocal cancer-related stress communication between patients and their caregivers using a specific communication task that promotes self-disclosure and request for support. All sessions are divided into four times: (1) session introduction, (2) first communication task, (3) second communication task and (4) session conclusion.
(1)Session introduction: Firstly, psychologist assesses if any significant moment occurred before the actual session and let dyad members talk about it if they want. Secondly, psychologist addresses some theoretical information about the session subject. First and second session subject is about personal cancer-concerns disclosure and close one supportive response to this disclosure. Third and fourth session subject is about personal request for support to face a cancer-related stress and close one response to this request for support. In the first and second session, psychologist therefore discusses the importance of sharing stress appraisal, stress describing, thoughts and emotions expressing and how to be supportive in responding. In the third and fourth session, psychologist discusses the importance of the personal needs communication and the clarity of the request for support to be well understood by the partner.
(2 \& 3) First and second communication task: This communication task is divided into an audio-recorded communication exercise and the debriefing of this communication exercise. In each session, there are therefore two communication tasks (two exercises and two debriefing). An exercise lasts 5 minutes and psychologist stays with the dyad but does not intervene during it. This exercise consists in patient and caregivers embody a specific role: "discloser" and "listener". Each role is associated with specific instructions. Exercise (and therefore task) is performed twice a session to let patient and caregiver experiment each of these roles. In the first and second session, the discloser has to express a personal cancer-related stress to the listener. The listener has to listen and respond supportively to this expressed cancer-related stress. In the third and fourth session, the discloser has to ask for help about a personal cancer-related stress to the listener. The listener has to listen and respond to this request for support. The exercise debriefing consists in the listening, in session, of the exercise record. After the listening, psychologist asks to the listener what kind of the discloser communicational behavior help him to understand the expressed cancer-related stress. Psychologist asks also to the discloser what kind of the listener communicational behavior help him to feel supported. After that, psychologist reinforces each positive communication strategy used by the discloser and the listener.
(4) Session conclusion: Psychologist summarizes the two communication tasks and notes all positive communication strategies used by the patient and the caregiver in self-disclosing/responding (first and second session) or request for support/responding to request for support.
5\. Assessment procedure: Patients and caregivers are assessed by self-reported measures at baseline (T1) (after enrollment) and 2 weeks after the intervention (in the experimental group) or 6 weeks after baseline (T2) (in the control group). Patients and caregivers complete exactly the same self-reported questionnaires and scales. Patients had a medical information questionnaire in addition at baseline and study personnel rated their performance status, based on the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, at T1 and T2. Other specific oncologic information was collected by medical record review.
At T1, demographic questionnaire assesses gender, age, cultural background, education level, native speaking, professional situation, familial situation (children) and psychiatric history. At T1, dyadic information questionnaire assesses relationship type, relationship length, living situation and contact frequency between patients and caregivers.
Patients and caregivers complete following self-reported scales in T1 and T2: (1) Cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, (2) cancer-related dyadic communication satisfaction, (3) cancer-related communication self-efficacy, (4) Dyadic Coping Inventory, (5) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (6) Ways of Coping Checklist.
6\. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis consisted in a comparative analysis of groups at baseline using parametric and nonparametric tests as appropriate (Student's t test, Mann-Withney U test or Chi-squared test). Patients and caregivers outcomes at baseline and after the DCRI, or after the waiting period, were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance (MANOVA). Time and group-by-time effects were processed using MANOVA. Effect size will be report with eta-squared (η²) given by MANOVA. All tests were two-tailed, and the alpha was set at 0.05. All analyzes were performed using SPSS®, version 25.
7\. Data Quality Control: There are 6 study collaborators: (1) recruitment manager, (2) investigation coordinator, (3) assessor, (4) psychologist in charge of the intervention, (5) data manager and (6 \& 7) two data assistants.
1. Recruitment manager manages the recruitment process. Every recruitment steps have been approved by institution ethics committee. Patients phone numbers meeting inclusion criteria are provided by the medical staff to the recruitment manager only. These phone numbers are destroyed after the recruitment phase. Recruitment manager calls each patient to give them basic information about the study. If they are interested in, recruitment manager calls the designated caregiver with the patient consent. If the caregiver agrees too, recruitment manager makes an appointment to provide a written informed consent.
2. Investigation assistant provides the randomization number for each participating dyad to the data manager. He books all DCRI session for the psychologist in the good time lapses (regarding the group).
3. Assessor assists participants in questionnaires and scales if they need it and he rates each patient by a Karnofsky score. A numerical copy is made for each assessment. This copy is put on a encrypted hard drive disk. Paper version is given in person to data manager. Paper versions are stored in a secure location.
4. Psychologist conducts the DCRI
5. Data manager manages randomization number, securing data storage, data encoding and encoding checking.
6. Data assistants encode data provide by the questionnaires and scales. They only have a participant ID and no randomization information. Double encoding, checked by the data manager, reduces encoding error.
This 7-persons functioning guarantees complete masking procedure from recruitment to encoding.
2. Participants: Patients and caregivers are recruited from oncology clinics at Erasme Hospital and Jules Bordet Institute (Brussels, Belgium). Recruitment and all study procedures were approved by a central ethics committee (Erasme - ULB Ethics Committee) and all participants are providing written informed consent.
3. Study Design: Participants are randomly assigned to the experimental group, consisting of the DCRI, or to the control group, consisting of a waiting list. Dyads in the waiting list can complete the DCRI after the last assessment if they want to. Investigator, psychologist in charge of the intervention and participants are blinded for this randomization. Dyads completed a follow-up assessment (T2), either 2 weeks after the DCRI in the experimental group or 6 weeks after baseline in the control condition. All assessment time were completed either at the outpatient clinic or at home.
4. DCRI content: DCRI aims communication reinforcement by a weekly 4-sessions program. DCRI is manualized and is conducted by an experienced psychologist (same psychologist for all participating dyads). Sessions focus on reciprocal cancer-related stress communication between patients and their caregivers using a specific communication task that promotes self-disclosure and request for support. All sessions are divided into four times: (1) session introduction, (2) first communication task, (3) second communication task and (4) session conclusion.
(1)Session introduction: Firstly, psychologist assesses if any significant moment occurred before the actual session and let dyad members talk about it if they want. Secondly, psychologist addresses some theoretical information about the session subject. First and second session subject is about personal cancer-concerns disclosure and close one supportive response to this disclosure. Third and fourth session subject is about personal request for support to face a cancer-related stress and close one response to this request for support. In the first and second session, psychologist therefore discusses the importance of sharing stress appraisal, stress describing, thoughts and emotions expressing and how to be supportive in responding. In the third and fourth session, psychologist discusses the importance of the personal needs communication and the clarity of the request for support to be well understood by the partner.
(2 \& 3) First and second communication task: This communication task is divided into an audio-recorded communication exercise and the debriefing of this communication exercise. In each session, there are therefore two communication tasks (two exercises and two debriefing). An exercise lasts 5 minutes and psychologist stays with the dyad but does not intervene during it. This exercise consists in patient and caregivers embody a specific role: "discloser" and "listener". Each role is associated with specific instructions. Exercise (and therefore task) is performed twice a session to let patient and caregiver experiment each of these roles. In the first and second session, the discloser has to express a personal cancer-related stress to the listener. The listener has to listen and respond supportively to this expressed cancer-related stress. In the third and fourth session, the discloser has to ask for help about a personal cancer-related stress to the listener. The listener has to listen and respond to this request for support. The exercise debriefing consists in the listening, in session, of the exercise record. After the listening, psychologist asks to the listener what kind of the discloser communicational behavior help him to understand the expressed cancer-related stress. Psychologist asks also to the discloser what kind of the listener communicational behavior help him to feel supported. After that, psychologist reinforces each positive communication strategy used by the discloser and the listener.
(4) Session conclusion: Psychologist summarizes the two communication tasks and notes all positive communication strategies used by the patient and the caregiver in self-disclosing/responding (first and second session) or request for support/responding to request for support.
5\. Assessment procedure: Patients and caregivers are assessed by self-reported measures at baseline (T1) (after enrollment) and 2 weeks after the intervention (in the experimental group) or 6 weeks after baseline (T2) (in the control group). Patients and caregivers complete exactly the same self-reported questionnaires and scales. Patients had a medical information questionnaire in addition at baseline and study personnel rated their performance status, based on the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, at T1 and T2. Other specific oncologic information was collected by medical record review.
At T1, demographic questionnaire assesses gender, age, cultural background, education level, native speaking, professional situation, familial situation (children) and psychiatric history. At T1, dyadic information questionnaire assesses relationship type, relationship length, living situation and contact frequency between patients and caregivers.
Patients and caregivers complete following self-reported scales in T1 and T2: (1) Cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, (2) cancer-related dyadic communication satisfaction, (3) cancer-related communication self-efficacy, (4) Dyadic Coping Inventory, (5) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (6) Ways of Coping Checklist.
6\. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis consisted in a comparative analysis of groups at baseline using parametric and nonparametric tests as appropriate (Student's t test, Mann-Withney U test or Chi-squared test). Patients and caregivers outcomes at baseline and after the DCRI, or after the waiting period, were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance (MANOVA). Time and group-by-time effects were processed using MANOVA. Effect size will be report with eta-squared (η²) given by MANOVA. All tests were two-tailed, and the alpha was set at 0.05. All analyzes were performed using SPSS®, version 25.
7\. Data Quality Control: There are 6 study collaborators: (1) recruitment manager, (2) investigation coordinator, (3) assessor, (4) psychologist in charge of the intervention, (5) data manager and (6 \& 7) two data assistants.
1. Recruitment manager manages the recruitment process. Every recruitment steps have been approved by institution ethics committee. Patients phone numbers meeting inclusion criteria are provided by the medical staff to the recruitment manager only. These phone numbers are destroyed after the recruitment phase. Recruitment manager calls each patient to give them basic information about the study. If they are interested in, recruitment manager calls the designated caregiver with the patient consent. If the caregiver agrees too, recruitment manager makes an appointment to provide a written informed consent.
2. Investigation assistant provides the randomization number for each participating dyad to the data manager. He books all DCRI session for the psychologist in the good time lapses (regarding the group).
3. Assessor assists participants in questionnaires and scales if they need it and he rates each patient by a Karnofsky score. A numerical copy is made for each assessment. This copy is put on a encrypted hard drive disk. Paper version is given in person to data manager. Paper versions are stored in a secure location.
4. Psychologist conducts the DCRI
5. Data manager manages randomization number, securing data storage, data encoding and encoding checking.
6. Data assistants encode data provide by the questionnaires and scales. They only have a participant ID and no randomization information. Double encoding, checked by the data manager, reduces encoding error.
This 7-persons functioning guarantees complete masking procedure from recruitment to encoding.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Cancer
Communication Programs
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Randomized Controlled Trial
Primary Study Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Blinding Strategy
QUADRUPLE
Participants
Caregivers
Investigators
Outcome Assessors
Randomization allocation is given only at the data manager. Participant, care provider and assessor do not know in which group participants are allocated
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
DCRI program
Patient-caregiver dyads will immediately attend the Dyadic communication reinforcement intervention. For both groups, first assessment time take place just after the enrollment, before the randomization. For this group, second assessment time take place 2 weeks post-intervention. Pre-post assessments consist in self-reported scales assessing emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping.
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
Dyadic Communication Reinforcement Intervention
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
Psycho-educative and behavioral intervention centered on cancer-related dyadic communication
Waiting List
Patient-caregiver dyads are in a waiting condition for 6 weeks. They will attend the Intervention after the second assessment time if they want to. For both group, first assessment time take place just after the enrollment, before the randomization. For this group, second assessment time take place 6 weeks after first assessment time. First and second assessment consist in self-reported scales assessing emotional distress, individual coping, cancer-related dyadic communication frequency, satisfaction, self-efficacy and coping.
Group Type
NO_INTERVENTION
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Dyadic Communication Reinforcement Intervention
Psycho-educative and behavioral intervention centered on cancer-related dyadic communication
Intervention Type
BEHAVIORAL
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* To read and speak French
* To be aged 18 years old or more
* To be aged 18 years old or more
Exclusion Criteria
* Not be treated for a psychiatric disorder
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Université Libre de Bruxelles
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Darius Razavi
Prof.
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Darius Razavi, MD, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Hopital Erasme & Institut Jules Bordet
Brussels, , Belgium
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Belgium
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Lee E, Roberts LJ. (2018). Between individual and family coping: a decade of theory and research on couples coping with health-related stress. Journal of Family Theory & Review 10: 141-164. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12252.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kayser K, Watson LE, Andrade JT. (2007). Cancer as a "We-disease": examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Family Systems & Health 25(4): 404-418.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Candy B, Jones L, Drake R, Leurent B, King M. Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD007617. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007617.pub2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Li Q, Loke AY. A literature review on the mutual impact of the spousal caregiver-cancer patients dyads: 'communication', 'reciprocal influence', and 'caregiver-patient congruence'. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Feb;18(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2013.09.003. Epub 2013 Oct 4.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Song L, Rini C, Ellis KR, Northouse LL. Appraisals, perceived dyadic communication, and quality of life over time among couples coping with prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2016 Sep;24(9):3757-65. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3188-0. Epub 2016 Apr 2.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Badr H, Krebs P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions for couples coping with cancer. Psychooncology. 2013 Aug;22(8):1688-704. doi: 10.1002/pon.3200. Epub 2012 Oct 9.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Waldron EA, Janke EA, Bechtel CF, Ramirez M, Cohen A. A systematic review of psychosocial interventions to improve cancer caregiver quality of life. Psychooncology. 2013 Jun;22(6):1200-7. doi: 10.1002/pon.3118. Epub 2012 Jun 25.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Manne SL, Ostroff JS, Norton TR, Fox K, Goldstein L, Grana G. Cancer-related relationship communication in couples coping with early stage breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006 Mar;15(3):234-47. doi: 10.1002/pon.941.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Northouse LL, Mood DW, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, Pienta KJ, Smith DC, Sanda MG, Kershaw T. Living with prostate cancer: patients' and spouses' psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Sep 20;25(27):4171-7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.6503. Epub 2007 Jul 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kayser K, Scott J. (2008). Helping couples cope with women's cancer. New York : Springer.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Manne S, Badr H, Zaider T, Nelson C, Kissane D. Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. J Cancer Surviv. 2010 Mar;4(1):74-85. doi: 10.1007/s11764-009-0109-y. Epub 2009 Dec 6.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Porter LS, Keefe FJ, Baucom DH, Hurwitz H, Moser B, Patterson E, Kim HJ. Partner-assisted emotional disclosure for patients with gastrointestinal cancer: results from a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2009 Sep 15;115(18 Suppl):4326-38. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24578.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Porter LS, Keefe FJ, Baucom DH, Hurwitz H, Moser B, Patterson E, Kim HJ. Partner-assisted emotional disclosure for patients with GI cancer: 8-week follow-up and processes associated with change. Support Care Cancer. 2012 Aug;20(8):1755-62. doi: 10.1007/s00520-011-1272-z. Epub 2011 Sep 24.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tiete J, Delvaux N, Lienard A, Razavi D. Efficacy of a dyadic intervention to improve communication between patients with cancer and their caregivers: A randomized pilot trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Mar;104(3):563-570. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.024. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
DCRI
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
A Couples Approach to Enhance Breast Cancer Survivorship
NCT00665899
COMPLETED
NA
Dyadic Life Review Intervention for Older Patients With Advanced Cancer) and Their Caregivers
NCT06505122
RECRUITING
NA
Patient-caregiver Communication Intervention for Prognostic Understanding
NCT03833817
COMPLETED
NA
Communicating a Cancer Diagnosis-Current Methods and Their Effects
NCT00674804
COMPLETED
Caregivers' and Cancer Survivors' Psychological Distress & Symptom Management
NCT03743415
COMPLETED
NA
Improvement of Information to Cancer Patients' Caregivers
NCT02380469
COMPLETED
NA
Cancer and Mild Cognitive Impairment Dyadic Intervention
NCT05144516
RECRUITING
NA
A Dyadic Intervention for Young Adult Patients With Cancer and Their Partner Caregivers
NCT06172907
RECRUITING
NA
Improving Adherence to ACS Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity in Latinas With Cancer and Their Informal Caregivers
NCT04314479
COMPLETED
NA
Cancer and Mild Cognitive Impairment a Patient-Caregiver Behavioral Intervention
NCT04826315
WITHDRAWN
NA
Symptom Management for YA Cancer Survivors
NCT04035447
COMPLETED
NA
Communicating About Sexual Concerns and Dysfunction Effectively (CASCADE) Program
NCT03658161
COMPLETED
NA
Educational Counseling in Improving Communication and Quality of Life in Spouses and Breast Cancer Patients
NCT01723943
COMPLETED
NA
Role of the Spouse/Partner of Persons Treated With Chemotherapy for Colon Cancer
NCT02873845
UNKNOWN
"Resilient Caregivers" - A Resilience-based Intervention for Distressed Partner Cancer Caregivers
NCT04610034
UNKNOWN
NA
"Walking Together with Love": a Couples-Based Intervention for Sexual and Relationship Distress in Cancer Patients
NCT06906575
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Cancer Related Cognitive Impairment
NCT03949322
UNKNOWN
NA
Symptom Support During Chemotherapy: A Mixed Method Study in Adult Patients With Cancer
NCT02298972
COMPLETED
NA
Taking Care of Her Program in Patients With Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer and Spouse Caregivers
NCT02401321
COMPLETED
NA
Side by Side - Prediction of Couples' Adjustment to Breast or Gynecological Cancer
NCT01073774
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Motivational Interviewing to Increase Physical Activity Behaviour in Cancer Patients
NCT03210129
COMPLETED
NA
Self-Affirmation and Defensiveness to Health Messages for the Self vs. a Close Other
NCT02317380
COMPLETED
Evaluation of a Oncology Day Care Unit Programme With Two Different Focuses
NCT04411251
COMPLETED
NA
Patient's and Caregiver's Expectations and Preferences Concerning Art Therapy Activities for Cancer Support
NCT03705052
COMPLETED
NA
The Effectiveness of Patient Navigation in Cancer Care
NCT03305965
UNKNOWN
NA