RNCase SeriesClinical journal of oncology nursing2020

Fear of Cancer Progression: Findings From Case Studies and a Nurse-Led Intervention.

Anne M Reb, Tami Borneman, Denice Economou and 3 others

PMID 32678373

WHAT IT FOUND

Two advanced gynecologic cancer patients who received a nurse-led fear-of-progression programme reported less worry and intrusive thoughts.

Their fear scores fell into the normal range, but this is only two cases, not evidence the programme works.

Key findings

01Gail's fear-of-progression score showed statistically reliable improvement (RCI = 4.35, p < 0.05), and she reported less intrusive thoughts and threat-monitoring behaviours.

02Debra's fear-of-progression score showed statistically reliable improvement (RCI = 3.45, p < 0.05), and she reported calmer thinking, more focus, and more restful sleep.

03At follow-up, each patient's Fear of Progression Short Form score was in the normal range.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only two patients were described, so the report cannot show how often the intervention helps or whether the nurse-led programme caused the changes. The patients were selected by convenience from one outpatient medical oncology clinic, so they may not represent other patients with advanced gynecologic cancer. The Day-by-Day programme included several components at once, so it is not possible to tell which component was responsible for the patients' reports. The intervention was delivered by two advanced practice nurses who received specific training and team supervision, so it is unclear whether nurses without that training would achieve the same reports.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that the nurse-led Day-by-Day programme reduces fear of progression in advanced gynecologic cancer. The report describes only two patients using a case study approach, so their score changes cannot be attributed to the intervention alone.

Read it on PubMed →