Trial Outcomes & Findings for Building Family Caregiver Skills Using a Simulation-Based Intervention for Care of Cancer Patients (NCT NCT04055948)
NCT ID: NCT04055948
Last Updated: 2026-03-30
Results Overview
Difference in CG anxiety between the intervention and control groups at 20 weeks post-radiation treatment. CG anxiety will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form 7a. This 7-item questionnaire assesses self-reported fear, worry, anxiety, tension, nervousness, and restlessness in the family caregiver over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for anxiety as measured by the PROMIS scale. Raw scores range from 7 to 35. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater anxiety. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse anxiety than average.
COMPLETED
NA
484 participants
20 weeks post treatment
2026-03-30
Participant Flow
Family caregiver and cancer participant dyads are enrolled in this 2-group, prospective, randomized controlled design to test the effect of a caregiver intervention during radiation therapy. The study enrolled a total of 242 dyads=484 participants
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Control Group - Caregivers(CG)
Caregivers(CG)
|
Control Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
Cancer participants(CP)
|
Experimental Group - Caregivers(CG)
Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
Experimental Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver (of the caregiver-cancer patient dyad) during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
117
|
117
|
125
|
125
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
101
|
101
|
99
|
99
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
16
|
16
|
26
|
26
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Control Group - Caregivers(CG)
Caregivers(CG)
|
Control Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
Cancer participants(CP)
|
Experimental Group - Caregivers(CG)
Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
Experimental Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver (of the caregiver-cancer patient dyad) during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
0
|
|
Overall Study
Death
|
0
|
9
|
0
|
9
|
|
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
|
1
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
|
Overall Study
Physician Decision
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
4
|
|
Overall Study
Unable to complete due to the drop out of the corresponding dyad
|
15
|
1
|
13
|
13
|
Baseline Characteristics
Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Experimental Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
n=124 Participants
Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver (of the caregiver-cancer patient dyad) during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
Total
n=483 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
Experimental Group - Caregivers(CG)
n=125 Participants
Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
Control Group - Caregivers(CG)
n=117 Participants
Caregivers(CG)
|
Control Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
n=117 Participants
Cancer participants(CP)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Customized
20-29
|
1 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
8 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
3 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
3 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
1 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Age, Customized
30-39
|
1 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
18 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
5 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
10 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
2 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Age, Customized
40-49
|
13 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
40 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
14 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
8 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
5 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Age, Customized
50-59
|
29 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
134 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
42 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
33 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
30 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Age, Customized
60-69
|
37 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
153 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
33 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
38 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
45 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Age, Customized
70-79
|
34 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
104 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
26 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
19 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
25 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Age, Customized
80-89
|
7 Participants
n=122 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
21 Participants
n=478 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
1 Participants
n=124 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
4 Participants
n=115 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
9 Participants
n=117 Participants • Age information is missing for: * 2 CGs in the control group * 2 CPs in the intervention group * 1 CG in the intervention group
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
43 Participants
n=124 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
271 Participants
n=482 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
98 Participants
n=125 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
91 Participants
n=116 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
39 Participants
n=117 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
81 Participants
n=124 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
211 Participants
n=482 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
27 Participants
n=125 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
25 Participants
n=116 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
78 Participants
n=117 Participants • Biological sex information is missing for: * 1 CG in the control group
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
0 Participants
n=124 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
3 Participants
n=482 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
1 Participants
n=125 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
1 Participants
n=116 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
1 Participants
n=117 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
98 Participants
n=124 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
387 Participants
n=482 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
103 Participants
n=125 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
93 Participants
n=116 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
93 Participants
n=117 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
26 Participants
n=124 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
92 Participants
n=482 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
21 Participants
n=125 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
22 Participants
n=116 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
23 Participants
n=117 Participants • Ethnicity information missing for: \- 1 CG in control arm
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=480 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
|
0 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
1 Participants
n=480 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
1 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
|
23 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
83 Participants
n=480 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
21 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
20 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
19 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
|
98 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
387 Participants
n=480 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
99 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
95 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
95 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
More than one race
|
2 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
8 Participants
n=480 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
3 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
1 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
2 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic
|
0 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
1 Participants
n=480 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=123 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
1 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
0 Participants
n=117 Participants • Race/ethnicity information missing for: * 2 CGs in experimental arm * 1 CP in experimental arm
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 20 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Control arm: No data collected for 27 caregivers. Intervention arm: No data collected for 34 caregivers.
Difference in CG anxiety between the intervention and control groups at 20 weeks post-radiation treatment. CG anxiety will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form 7a. This 7-item questionnaire assesses self-reported fear, worry, anxiety, tension, nervousness, and restlessness in the family caregiver over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for anxiety as measured by the PROMIS scale. Raw scores range from 7 to 35. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater anxiety. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse anxiety than average.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=90 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=91 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Anxiety at 20 Weeks Post-treatment
|
52.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.19
|
51.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.36
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: BaselineCG anxiety will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form 7a. This 7-item questionnaire assesses self-reported fear, worry, anxiety, tension, nervousness, and restlessness in the family caregiver over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for anxiety as measured by the PROMIS scale. Raw scores range from 7 to 35. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater anxiety. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse anxiety than average.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=117 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=125 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Anxiety at Baseline
|
53.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.89
|
53.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At end of treatment, average of seven weeksPopulation: Control group: Data not collected for 16 caregivers. Intervention group: Data not collected for 10 caregivers.
Difference in CG anxiety between the intervention and control groups at the end of radiation treatment CG anxiety will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form 7a. This 7-item questionnaire assesses self-reported fear, worry, anxiety, tension, nervousness, and restlessness in the family caregiver over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for anxiety as measured by the PROMIS scale. Raw scores range from 7 to 35. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater anxiety. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse anxiety than average.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=97 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=98 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Anxiety at the End of Radiation Treatment
|
53.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.98
|
53.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.36
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Control group: Data not collected for 9 caregivers. Intervention group: Data not collected for 8 caregivers.
CG anxiety between the intervention and control groups at 4 weeks post treatment. CG anxiety will be measured with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety Short Form 7a. This 7-item questionnaire assesses self-reported fear, worry, anxiety, tension, nervousness, and restlessness in the family caregiver over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for anxiety as measured by the PROMIS scale. Raw scores range from 7 to 35. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater anxiety. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse anxiety than average.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=102 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=99 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Anxiety at 4 Weeks Post Treatment
|
52.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.11
|
52.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.2
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at baseline, at end of treatment (average of seven weeks), and at 4 and 20 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Data not collected for: * End of radiation: 20 CGs in control, 27 CGs in intervention * 4 weeks post radiation: 15 CGs in control, 26 CGs in intervention * 20 weeks post radiation: 27 CGs in control, 34 CGs in intervention
CG depression will be measured with the PROMIS Depression Short Form 8b. This 8-item questionnaire assesses caregiver self-reported negative mood (sadness, guilt), views of self (worthlessness), and social cognition (loneliness), as well as decreased positive affect and engagement. It assesses depression over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for depression as measured by the PROMIS scale. Raw scores range from 8 to 40. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater depression. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse depression than average.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=117 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=125 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Depression
Baseline
|
49.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.18
|
49.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.38
|
|
CG Depression
End of radiation treatment
|
50.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.52
|
50.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.66
|
|
CG Depression
4 weeks post radiation treatment
|
50.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.02
|
49.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.95
|
|
CG Depression
20 weeks post radiation treatment
|
49.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.57
|
49.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.38
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at baseline, at end of treatment (average of seven weeks), and at 4 and 20 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Data not collected for: * End of radiation: 19 CGs in control, 27 CGs in intervention * 4 weeks post radiation: 15 CGs in control, 26 CGs in intervention * 20 weeks post radiation: 27 CGs in control, 34 CGs in intervention
The PROMIS Global Health Scale will be scored as two separate domains - Global Physical Health and Global Mental Health. These domains are not combined for a total score. Raw scores range from 4 to 20. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents better health (Global Physical Health or Global Mental Health) than the general population. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation better health than average
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=117 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=125 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Mental Health Domain
Baseline
|
50.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.23
|
50.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.96
|
|
CG Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Mental Health Domain
End of treatment
|
46.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.43
|
46.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.27
|
|
CG Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Mental Health Domain
4 weeks post treatment
|
47.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.94
|
47.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.7
|
|
CG Health-related Quality of Life (HRQOL) as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Mental Health Domain
20 weeks post treatment
|
48.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.28
|
47 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.7
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, end of treatment, 4 weeks and 20 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Data not collected for: * End of radiation: 19 CGs in control, 27 CGs in intervention * 4 weeks post radiation: 15 CGs in control, 26 CGs in intervention * 20 weeks post radiation: 27 CGs in control, 34 CGs in intervention
The PROMIS Global Health Scale will be scored as two separate domains - Global Physical Health and Global Mental Health. These domains are not combined for a total score. Raw scores range from 4 to 20. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents better health (Global Physical Health or Global Mental Health) than the general population. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation better health than average
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=117 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=125 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG HRQOL as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Physical Health
Baseline
|
51.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.46
|
51 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.61
|
|
CG HRQOL as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Physical Health
End of radiation treatment
|
49 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.82
|
49.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.71
|
|
CG HRQOL as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Physical Health
4 weeks post treatment
|
49.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.12
|
50.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.53
|
|
CG HRQOL as Measured by PROMIS Global Health Scale - Global Physical Health
20weeks post treatment
|
50.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.85
|
50.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.39
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at baseline, at end of treatment (average of seven weeks), and at 4 and 20 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Data not collected for: * End of radiation: 21 CGs in control, 27 CGs in intervention * 4 weeks post radiation: 15 CGs in control, 26 CGs in intervention * 20 weeks post radiation: 27 CGs in control, 34 CGs in intervention
CG fatigue will be measured with the PROMIS Fatigue Short Form 7a, a 7-item questionnaire that evaluates the self-reported experience of fatigue (frequency, duration, intensity) and the impact of fatigue on daily activities. It assesses fatigue over the last 7 days. This outcome will be reporting the average T-score for fatigue. Raw scores range from 7 to 35. Each participant's raw score on the scale will be converted to a standardized T-score that has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A higher T-score represents greater fatigue. For example, a T-score of 60 is one standard deviation worse fatigue than average.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=117 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=125 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
CG Fatigue
End of treatment
|
51.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.69
|
49.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.48
|
|
CG Fatigue
Baseline
|
48.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.04
|
49 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.01
|
|
CG Fatigue
4 weeks post treatment
|
51.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.81
|
48 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.12
|
|
CG Fatigue
20 weeks post treatment
|
50.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.12
|
48.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.15
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: at baseline, at end of treatment (average of seven weeks), and at 4 and 20 weeks post treatmentPopulation: Data not collected for: * End of radiation: 25 CGs in control, 26 CGs in intervention * 4 weeks post radiation: 18 CGs in control, 24 CGs in intervention * 20 weeks post radiation: 23 CGs in control, 30 CGs in intervention
Participant HRQOL will be measured using the disease-specific versions of FACT-G that include common subscales (physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being) plus cancer-specific questions. The effect of the intervention on HRQOL across diagnoses will be analyzed using the common subscales. The symptom experience with each diagnostic group will be described using the cancer-specific subscale. Participants rate their response to each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale. After reverse-scoring negatively worded questions, items are summed. Higher scores indicate better quality of life. The FACT - Colorectal (FACT-C, Version 4) is a 37-item questionnaire that measures self-reported HRQOL in patients with colorectal cancer over the last 7 days.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=115 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=120 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant HRQOL (Cancer Patient) as Measured by FACT-G
Baseline
|
76.5 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.45
|
79.3 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.17
|
|
Participant HRQOL (Cancer Patient) as Measured by FACT-G
End of treatment
|
69.7 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.64
|
70.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.48
|
|
Participant HRQOL (Cancer Patient) as Measured by FACT-G
4 weeks post radiation treatment
|
74.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.67
|
74.4 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.7
|
|
Participant HRQOL (Cancer Patient) as Measured by FACT-G
20 weeks post radiation treatment
|
76.5 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.89
|
78.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.03
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: End of radiation treatment, average of seven weeksInterrupted Radiation Treatment Course, defined as the total number of missed treatment days due to patient or caregiver reasons, will be determined from the patient's radiation therapy treatment record. Number of days of each episode of absence from treatment will also be recorded.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=117 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=125 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Interrupted Treatment
|
0 days
Interval 0.0 to 16.0
|
0 days
Interval 0.0 to 10.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 20 weeks post treatmentHealthcare utilization was measured by number of hospital admissions during the entire study period. These were assessed via review of the patient's medical record at T4 (end of study).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=116 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=117 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Healthcare Utilization for Participants, as Measured by Number of Hospital Admissions
|
0 admissions
Interval 0.0 to 6.0
|
0 admissions
Interval 0.0 to 6.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 20 weeks post treatmentHealthcare utilization was measured by number of emergency room visits during the entire study period. These were assessed via review of the patient's medical record at T4 (end of study).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=116 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=118 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Healthcare Utilization for Participants, as Measured by Number of Emergency Room Visits
|
0 visits
Interval 0.0 to 6.0
|
0 visits
Interval 0.0 to 6.0
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: 20 weeks post treatmentHealthcare utilization was measured by number of visits for IV hydration during the entire study period. These were assessed via review of the patient's medical record at T4 (end of study).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Control - Standard of Care
n=116 Participants
CG(caregivers)/CP(cancer patients) dyads
|
Intervention
n=116 Participants
CG/CP dyads
\- Three, one-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatment, followed by a telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
One-on-one support/educational sessions: One-on-one support/educational sessions with the caregiver during radiation treatments (note - intervention sessions 2 \& 3 delivered by phone during COVID-19 and remained an option after the pandemic).
Telephone booster contact: Telephone booster contact 2 weeks post-treatment.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Healthcare Utilization for Participants, as Measured by Number of Visits for IV Hydration
|
0 visits
Interval 0.0 to 21.0
|
0 visits
Interval 0.0 to 48.0
|
Adverse Events
Control Group - Caregivers(CG)
Control Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
Experimental Group - Caregivers(CG)
Experimental Group - Cancer Participants(CP)
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Susan Mazanec, PhD, RN, Study Principal Investigator
Case Western Reserve University
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place