Single-arm study shows improved caregiver anxiety and depression in rural settings, suggesting social support interventions can be effective.
Background Rural residents are more likely to be caregivers and face significant burdens in caring for cancer patients. Rural caregivers can benefit from tailored interventions addressing their unique and complex needs. Aims This single‐arm study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of an adapted social support intervention, enCompass Carolina, for caregivers of rural cancer patients. Methods EnCompass Carolina is an 8‐week one‐on‐one caregiver coaching program paired with a web‐based support mapping tool (Clinical Trials #NCT05828927). Caregivers were recruited via patients treated in infusion clinics. Caregiver outcomes captured at enrollment, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks included coping self‐efficacy, burden, anxiety, depression, and social support. Patient outcomes captured at enrollment and 8 weeks were anxiety, depression, and distress. Feasibility was measured using caregiver participation and completion rates and acceptability ratings. Generalized estimating equation methods accounted for repeated measures per person and were used to evaluate scores over time. Results Of 137 invited caregivers, 59 (44%) participated. 73% were female, 79% were non‐Hispanic White, and average age was 60. 52 caregivers completed the support tool and 1+ coaching session, 46 (78%) completed post‐intervention measures at 4 weeks, and 44 (75%) completed post‐intervention measures at 8 weeks. Average acceptability ratings were 4.6 out of 5. Caregiver coping self‐efficacy, anxiety, and depression significantly improved from pre‐to post‐intervention. No significant effects were seen on caregiver burden, support, or patient outcomes. Conclusions This one‐on‐one caregiver coaching program is feasible and acceptable for rural cancer caregivers, and it appears to be a promising intervention suitable for efficacy testing in future larger studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kent et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: