ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S5694

RTT - Patient experience and quality of life

ESTRO 2024

pandemic, materials were adapted for online delivery. The intervention was offered to patients who had completed breast cancer treatment and demonstrated a need for FCR support. Referrals were welcomed by clinicians, third sector organisations, and self-referral.

Outcome measures were collected at three time points relative to the ACT programme delivery: pre- (T1), post- (T2) and 12 weeks post intervention (T3).

The primary outcomes were FCR and quality of life (QOL) as measured by the FCRI-SF [1] and FACT-B [2]. Secondary outcome measures included the PHQ-9 (depression) [3] and GAD-7 (anxiety) [4] as measures of psychological distress, as well as the CompACT (psychological flexibility) [5]. Improvement in psychological flexibility is the overarching aim of an ACT-based intervention.

Analysis used a repeated measure, mixed ANOVA design. Pairwise comparisons were conducted between T1 and T2, T1 and T3 and T2 and T3 to determine if change in outcome measures were statistically significant (p<0.05).

Results:

Data from 97 in-person participants and 61 digital group participants were analysed. In-person and digital participants mean outcome scores were compared.

FCR score was highest at T1 for both interventions, decreasing at T2 and further at T3. Within-group analysis revealed this decrease was statistically significant, overall (F (1.9, 222.9) =78.3, p<0.001, η2=0.4) and between group analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in FCR score between delivery conditions (F(1,119)=0.1, p=0.76). Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant decrease in FCR between all incremental timepoints for in-person delivery (p<0.001 at all combinations) as well as a statistically significant decrease between T1-T2; T1-T3 (both p<0.001) for digital administration but not significant between T1-T3 (p=0.15). The comparisons of mean scores for each outcome measure, across timepoints, are illustrated between delivery modality in Table 1. QoL score was lowest at T1 for both interventions, increasing at T2 and further at T3. This increase was found to be statistically significant, overall (F(2, 238) =100.4, p<0.001, η2=0.5), with no statistically significant difference between group difference when comparing in-person and digital delivery (F (1,119) =3.5, p=0.06). Pairwise comparisons revealed a statistically significant increase in QoL between all incremental timepoints (in person p<0.001 at all combinations; digital T1-T2; T1-T3 both p<0.001; T2-T3 p<0.01). Psychological distress and psychological flexibility data were analysed as secondary outcomes. The depression scores decreased at each timepoint for both in-person and digital delivery. Within-group analysis revealed this decrease was statistically significant, overall (F (1.9, 223.4), p<0.001, η2=0.3) and between group analysis revealed there was no statistically significant difference between delivery conditions (F(1, 119)=2.0, p=0.16). For both delivery modalities, the reduction in depression scores between T1–T2 and T1–T3 was statistically significant (both p<0.001) and reduction between T2-T3 was not statistically significant (in person p=0.2; digital p=0.7). This result pattern was replicated for the decrease in anxiety outcome measure scores. Psychological flexibility scores increased at each time-point for both in-person and digital delivery. Within-group analysis revealed this increase was statistically significant, overall (F(1.8, 209)= 82.2, p<0.001, η2=0.4) and between-group analysis revealed there was no statistically significant difference between delivery conditions (F(1,119)=4.2, p=0.42). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the increase at all timepoint comparisons was statistically significant for the in-person intervention (T1-T2; T1-T3 both p<0.001), T2-T3 p<0.01). For digital delivery, the increase between T1-T2 and T1-T3 was found to be statistically significant (both p<0.001) but not between T2-T3 (p=0.08).