A technology-based information and coaching/support program and self-efficacy of Asian American breast cancer survivors.
Eun-Ok Im, Jee-Seon Yi, Hyeoneui Kim and 1 others
PMID 32729970WHAT IT FOUND
Asian American breast cancer survivors' self-efficacy rose and stayed up to 3 months in the intervention group, while controls rose at 1 month but decreased by 3 months.
The program mixed forums, lessons, resources and coaching, so the active part is unclear.
Key findings
01Self-efficacy increased significantly over time in both groups, but the intervention group increased from pre-test to 1 month and 3 months while the control group decreased by 3 months.
02When survivors were split into high and low self-efficacy change groups, more intervention group members had high change (p = .036).
03A decision tree analysis suggested the intervention may have worked better for intervention participants with high patient care and support needs who had lower education and low perceived social support, or higher education over 40.5 years and low perceived social support.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was a small pilot, so it cannot confirm which part of the program produced the change. The intervention combined social media, educational modules, online resources, coaching and use of an American Cancer Society website, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. Participants were recruited through community announcements and had to have internet access, which may have selected for people already able to use technology. Self-efficacy was measured by self-report, and missing self-efficacy data led to exclusions. Dose-response relationships could not be examined because of the small sample, multiple covariates and multiple intervention components. The authors noted possible bias from culturally matched interventionists and lack of qualitative data on usability or acceptability.
Declared interests
The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The article is listed as supported by NIH extramural research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the technology program alone caused the improvement. The study was a small pilot, the intervention combined several components, and both groups used an American Cancer Society website.