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.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

484 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

20 weeks post treatment

Results posted on

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

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

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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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: Baseline

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

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 weeks

Population: 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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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 treatment

Population: 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

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 weeks

Interrupted 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

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 treatment

Healthcare 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

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 treatment

Healthcare 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

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 treatment

Healthcare 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

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)

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Control Group - Cancer Participants(CP)

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 9 deaths

Experimental Group - Caregivers(CG)

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Experimental Group - Cancer Participants(CP)

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 9 deaths

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

Phone: 1-216-368-5533

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place