Effects of web-based instruction and patient preferences on patient-reported outcomes and learning for women with advanced ovarian cancer: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial was conducted of a web-based intervention to improve advanced care planning in women with ovarian cancer. A secondary analysis of 35 randomized women focused on changes in distress and knowledge about ovarian cancer through distress monitoring and information tailored to patients' cognitive coping style (monitoring, blunting). Pre-/postresults indicated the Intervention group demonstrated lower distress (p = 0.06); blunting was associated with lower depression (p = 0.04); knowledge in both groups was unchanged. Women in the Intervention vs. Control group reported their family was less likely to be upset by cancer information (p = 0.0004). This intervention reduced distress while incorporating patient preferences.

The effectiveness of online interventions for patients with gynecological cancer: An integrative review

“…Of the 16 studies, seven were conducted in the United States [26,32,36,37,[40][41][42], seven were conducted in mainland China [27][28][29][30][31]33,34], one was conducted in Canada [25,38], and one was conducted in Australia [35,39]. All studies were published between 2003 and 2019, and 75% (12/16) of the studies were published between 2016 and 2019 [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][39][40][41][42]. The majority of the patients recruited were highly educated (college or higher) in six studies [25,26,32,33,38,41,42].…”

“…All studies were published between 2003 and 2019, and 75% (12/16) of the studies were published between 2016 and 2019 [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][39][40][41][42]. The majority of the patients recruited were highly educated (college or higher) in six studies [25,26,32,33,38,41,42].…”

“…Two quantitative nonrandomized articles were published in Chinese [27,30]. In eight RCT articles, three articles were published in English [25,26,32] and five were published in Chinese [28,29,31,33,34]. Only one RCT design blinded participants and caregivers through two separate websites with selfreported outcomes [32].…”

“…In this review, the sample sizes of ten quantitative articles [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and the quantitative parts of the two mixed-methods articles [39,41] ranged from 19 to 154, among which the sample sizes of nine articles were less than 82 [25][26][27][28][29][32][33][34]41]. The sample sizes of six qualitative articles [35][36][37][38]40,42] and the qualitative parts of the two mixedmethods articles [39,41] ranged from five to 134.…”

“…1). The 18 articles were originally classified into ten quantitative [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], four qualitative [35][36][37][38], and four mixed-methods [39][40][41][42] study designs. Classen et al [25] and Wiljer et al [38] reported different findings from the GyneGals program, and Erfani et al [35] and Erfani et al [39] explored the different perspectives of the Ovarian Cancer Australia (OCA) Facebook.…”