Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Development and preliminary testing of PROGRESS: a Web-based education program for prostate cancer survivors transitioning from active treatment

Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This formative research study describes the development and preliminary evaluation of a theory-guided, online multimedia psycho-educational program (PROGRESS) designed to facilitate adaptive coping among prostate cancer patients transitioning from treatment into long-term survivorship.

Methods

Guided by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing Model (C-SHIP) and using health communications best practices, we conducted a two-phase, qualitative formative research study with early stage prostate cancer patients (n = 29) to inform the Web program development. Phase 1 included individual (n = 5) and group (n = 12) interviews to help determine intervention content and interface. Phase 2 employed iterative user/usability testing (n = 12) to finalize the intervention. Interview data were independently coded and collectively analyzed to achieve consensus.

Results

Survivors expressed interest in action-oriented content on (1) managing treatment side effects, (2) handling body image and comorbidities related to overweight/obesity, (3) coping with emotional and communication issues, (4) tips to reduce disruptions of daily living activities, and (5) health skills training tools. Patients also desired the use of realistic and diverse survivor images.

Conclusions

Incorporation of an established theoretical framework, application of multimedia intervention development best practices, and an evidence-based approach to content and format resulted in a psycho-educational tool that comprehensively addresses survivors’ needs in a tailored fashion.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

The results suggest that an interactive Web-based multimedia program is useful for survivors if it covers the key topics of symptom control, emotional well-being, and coping skills training; this tool has the potential to be disseminated and implemented as an adjunct to routine clinical care.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society; 2014.

  2. Jemal A et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel R et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(4):220–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. American Cancer Society. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2014–2015. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society; 2014.

  5. Anandadas CN et al. Early prostate cancer—which treatment do men prefer and why? BJU Int. 2011;107(11):1762–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Singer EA et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(3):243–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Skolarus TA et al. American cancer society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bacon CG et al. The association of treatment-related symptoms with quality-of-life outcomes for localized prostate carcinoma patients. Cancer. 2002;94(3):862–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lintz K et al. Prostate cancer patients’ support and psychological care needs: survey from a non-surgical oncology clinic. Psychooncology. 2003;12(8):769–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wootten AC et al. Psychological adjustment of survivors of localised prostate cancer: investigating the role of dyadic adjustment, cognitive appraisal and coping style. Psychooncology. 2007;16(11):994–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bennett G, Badger TA. Depression in men with prostate cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32(3):545–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chipperfield K et al. Factors associated with adherence to physical activity guidelines in patients with prostate cancer. Psychooncology. 2013;22(11):2478–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Badger TA et al. Who benefits from a psychosocial counselling versus educational intervention to improve psychological quality of life in prostate cancer survivors? Psychol Health. 2013;28(3):336–54.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cegala DJ, Post DM. The impact of patients‘ participation on physicians’ patient-centered communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(2):202–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grunfeld E, Earle CC. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(40):25–30.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grant M et al. Educating health care professionals to provide institutional changes in cancer survivorship care. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27(2):226–32.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bradley CJ et al. Employment and cancer: findings from a longitudinal study of breast and prostate cancer survivors. Cancer Invest. 2007;25(1):47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Grunfeld EA et al. “The only way I know how to live is to work”: a qualitative study of work following treatment for prostate cancer. Health Psychol. 2013;32(1):75–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boberg EW et al. Assessing the unmet information, support and care delivery needs of men with prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;49(3):233–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith DP et al. Age, health, and education determine supportive care needs of men younger than 70 years with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(18):2560–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stanton AL. What happens now? psychosocial care for cancer survivors after medical treatment completion. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(11):1215–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller SM, Diefenbach MA. The Cognitive-Social Health Information-Processing (C-SHIP model: A theoretical Framework for Research in Behavioral Oncology. In: Krantz DS, Baum A, editors. Technology and Methods in Behavioral Medicine. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 1998. p. 219–44.

  23. Miller SM et al. Tailoring psychosocial interventions to the individual’s health information-processing style: The influence of monitoring versus blunting in cancer risk and disease. In: Baum A, Andersen B, editors. Psychosocial interventions for cancer. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001. p. 343–62.

  24. Project, P.R.I. Internet User Demographics, As of January 2014, 87 % of American adults use the internet. Internet and Tech 2014 [cited 2014 April]; Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats

  25. Sanchez MA et al. A systematic review of eHealth cancer prevention and control interventions: new technology, same methods and designs? Transl Behav Med. 2013;3(4):392–401.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Carpenter, K.M., et al., An online stress management workbook for breast cancer. J Behav Med, 2012

  27. Pauwels E et al. Design and process evaluation of an informative website tailored to breast cancer survivors ‘and intimate partners’ post-treatment care needs. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:548.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wen KY et al. The development and preliminary testing of a multimedia patient-provider survivorship communication module for breast cancer survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):344–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marcus AC et al. Cancer patient and survivor research from the cancer information service research consortium: a preview of three large randomized trials and initial lessons learned. J Health Commun. 2013;18(5):543–62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schover LR et al. A randomized trial of internet-based versus traditional sexual counseling for couples after localized prostate cancer treatment. Cancer. 2012;118(2):500–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Bogaert D et al. The development of an eHealth tool suite for prostate cancer patients and their partners. J Support Oncol. 2012;10(5):202–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McPherson, D.A. and D.A. Herxheimer. healthtalk.org. [cited 2014; Available from: http://www.healthtalk.org/.

  33. Wootten A et al. Development, feasibility and usability of an online psychological intervention for men with prostate cancwer: My road ahead. Internet Interv. 2014;1.

  34. Burns SM, Mahalik JR. Understanding how masculine gender scripts may contribute to men’s adjustment following treatment for prostate cancer. Am J Mens Health. 2007;1(4):250–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wall D, Kristjanson L. Men, culture and hegemonic masculinity: understanding the experience of prostate cancer. Nurs Inq. 2005;12(2):87–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mankowski ES, Maton KI. A community psychology of men and masculinity: historical and conceptual review. Am J Community Psychol. 2010;45(1–2):73–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mroz LW, Oliffe JL, Davison BJ. Masculinities and patient perspectives of communication about active surveillance for prostate cancer. Health Psychol. 2013;32(1):83–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rudd, R.E. Guidelines for Creating Materials-Resources for Developing and Assessing Materials. 2014; Available from: www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy.edu.

  39. Osborne H. Health literacy from a to Z, second edition: practical ways to communicate your health message. Burlington: Jones&Bartlett Learning; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Doak, C., L. Doak, and J. Root, Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 1985, Philadelphia: JB Lippincott.

  41. Venderbos, L.D., et al., A longitudinal study on the impact of active surveillance for prostate cancer on anxiety and distress levels. Psychooncology, 2014

  42. Hudson SV et al. Cancer survivors and the patient-centered medical home. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2(3):322–31.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hudson SV et al. Adult cancer survivors discuss follow-up in primary care: ‘not what i want, but maybe what i need’. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(5):418–27.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Diefenbach MA et al. Acceptability and preliminary feasibility of an internet/CD-ROM-based education and decision program for early-stage prostate cancer patients: randomized pilot study. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fleisher L et al. Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: the preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(1):63–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Neilsen J. Usability engineering. Cambridge: Elsevier; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jaspers MW et al. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(11–12):781–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Crabtree, B.F. and W.L. Miller, Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. 1999, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. xvii, 406 p.

  49. Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña, Qualitative data analysis : a methods sourcebook. Third edition. ed. 2014, Thousand Oaks, Califorinia: SAGE Publications, Inc. xxiii, 381 pages.

  50. Connell R. Gender, health and theory: conceptualizing the issue, in local and world perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(11):1675–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Connell RW. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept gender. Society. 2005;19(6):829–59.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Buzaglo JS et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and usability of NCI’s facing forward booklet in the cancer community setting. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7(1):63–73.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Coleman MT, Newton KS. Supporting self-management in patients with chronic illness. Am Fam Physician. 2005;72(8):1503–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Weiss, D.S. and C.R. Marmar, The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, in Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD, J.P. Wilson and T.M. Keane, Editors. 1996, Guilford: New York.

  56. Perez M et al. A novel intervention using interactive technology and personal narratives to reduce cancer disparities: African American breast cancer survivor stories. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(1):21–30.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute grants, R01 CA158019 to Dr. Miller and the Fox Chase Cancer Center Behavioral Research Core Facility P30-CA06927. Dr. Hudson was supported by the following awards from the National Cancer Institute: K01 CA 131500, R03 CA154063, and R01 CA176838. Dr. Hui was supported by the National Cancer Institute grant R03 CA159903. Dr. Diefenbach was supported by the following awards from the National Cancer Institute: 1R01 CA158019-01, 1R21 CA155963, 1R21 CA164807; and W81XWH-11-1-0604, from the Department of Defense. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of James Williams and the patients who participated in this study or appeared in the patient videos for the Web program development. We thank the clinicians who appeared in the videos, Drs. Natan Bar-Chama, Neil Grafstein, and Christian Nelson. Other research team members, including Margaret Atchison, Javier Muniz, Craig Walt, Megan Grau, Eric Shaw, Sean O’Sullivan, Martin Cohen, Jennifer Burns, and Matt Hall, also made contributions to this study. We also thank Mary Anne Ryan for her technical and administrative assistance. Last but not least, we thank the team members from NotSoldSeparately.com, Kevin Durr, Joe Ifi, Mayr Budny, Dan Alvare, and Anthony Wojtkowiak, for their help in the technical process of the website development and implementation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne M. Miller.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 1050 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, S.M., Hudson, S.V., Hui, Sk.A. et al. Development and preliminary testing of PROGRESS: a Web-based education program for prostate cancer survivors transitioning from active treatment. J Cancer Surviv 9, 541–553 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-015-0431-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-015-0431-5

Keywords

Navigation