Evaluation reveals digital and in-person formats have similar outcomes for fear of cancer recurrence in breast cancer survivors, indicating flexibility in supportive care delivery is beneficial.
Purpose Service evaluation comparing the effectiveness and acceptability of an in-person and a digitally delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)–based group programme for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) for breast cancer survivors. Methods The programme was designed and delivered as part of a real-world, supportive care intervention and adapted for digital delivery in response to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. FCR, quality of life (QoL), psychological flexibility, and psychological distress measures were routinely collected pre-participation, post-participation, and 12 weeks following completion. Results Ninety-seven in-person and 61 digital participants completed the group programme. Uptake was 30% and retention 89% for in-person. Uptake was 23% and retention 64% for online referrals. Between group statistical analyses revealed non-significant differences between delivery modality on overall scores of FCR ( p = 0.76), QoL ( p = 0.06) and psychological distress (anxiety p = 0.16; depression p = 0.22). There was a significant difference in psychological flexibility scores ( p = 0.04); digital participant scores were higher (mean = 83) than in-person participants (mean = 76.3). Within-group statistical analyses found a significant effect of time for all outcome measures, with a significant decrease in FCR and psychological distress and a significant increase in QoL and psychological flexibility ( p < 0.001 for all measures). There were no statistically significant interaction effects between delivery modality and timepoint. Conclusion In-person and online delivery of a real-world FCR group programme offered to breast-cancer survivors was found to be beneficial and comparable. These results support the potential benefits of a flexible approach to delivery modality of supportive care interventions. Further investigation is required to determine if these results are replicable within diverse populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sinclair et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: