Person-centred online lifestyle coaching in childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors: protocol of the multicentre PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention feasibility study

Abstract

Background Physical inactivity and unhealthy dietary habits are known to be disadvantageous for the development of late adverse effects in survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer. To make interventions, aimed at improving lifestyle, fit into the daily life of survivors, interventions should be designed and delivered in a person-centred way with a limited time burden. As part of the European PanCareFollowUp project, an eHealth intervention was developed to support sustainable changes to physical activity levels and/or diet of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors. This feasibility study aims to gain insight into the feasibility and potential effect sizes of the PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention. Methods The PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention consists of person-centred 3–6 screen-to-screen sessions with a certified lifestyle coach. The intervention will be evaluated with a single-arm pre-post feasibility study conducted at two survivorship care clinics in the Netherlands. A total of 60 participants who are (i) diagnosed with cancer <25 years, (ii) ≥ 5 years post-treatment, (iii) aged 16–55 years, and (iv) have a low physical activity level and/or unhealthy dietary intake manifested by overweight will be recruited. Using reports, hospital records, and questionnaires for survivors, coaches, and late effect doctors, feasibility will be based on (i) adherence to intervention, (ii) acceptability, (iii) practicality, (iv) integration/implementation, (v) demand, and (vi) attrition. The potential effect sizes of the intervention will be explored by determining the percentage of survivors that reach the personalized lifestyle goals that were set with the coach. Physical activity level, dietary intake, BMI, general self-efficacy, self-management, and motivation level will be assessed at three time points with questionnaires, reports, and/or an accelerometer. Discussion Data of this study will be gathered to assess the feasibility and potential effect sizes. This will allow for further intervention refinement as needed as well as to inform a future large-scale intervention study and a manual for implementation at other centres. Trial registration International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) number: NL8932 (ICTRP Search Portal (who.int)). Registered on September 29, 2020.

Feasibility and potential effectiveness of nurse-led video-coaching interventions for childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors: the REVIVER study

“…This contrasts with previous studies on fatigue and lifestyle interventions, showing less enduring effects beyond follow-up periods [ 61 , 64 ]. In upcoming research conducted by Bouwman et al, the investigation will seek to determine whether a lifestyle intervention based on person-centred care principles may yield potential impacts on health behaviours, both in the short-term (i.e., directly following the intervention) and in the longer term (i.e., 4 months post-intervention) [ 65 ]. Exploring sustained effects beyond 4 or 6 months would also be interesting in future studies.…”

Nutritional assessment and dietary intervention among survivors of childhood cancer: current landscape and a look to the future

“…The lack of consensus regarding an optimal intervention approach is compounded by studies like that of Alchin et al, who found that AYA survivors exhibit limited recall and poor adherence to healthcare recommendations despite the use of a variety of communication modalities for education delivery ( 70 ). In an effort to overcome some of these unique hurdles contemporary investigations are incorporating novel approaches alongside more conventional strategies, such as creating a CCS-directed cookbook and providing guided lifestyle coaching sessions ( 71 , 76 ).…”

“…It has been suggested that CCS, and AYAs in particular, could significantly benefit from such technology-based programs (62). In fact, in recent years CCS studies have increasingly opted for remote (telephone, mobile application, telehealth) intervention strategies as these are typically more cost-effective, accessible to those living in rural and/or remote areas, and preferred among younger groups (60,(68)(69)(70)(71). Nevertheless, Touyz et al found that both adolescents and their parents preferred face-to-face intervention to a web-based one (68).…”