Article downloads are temporarily unavailable, affecting member access to articles and purchased articles. Thank you for your patience. For immediate assistance contact ONS
cancel
Manne, S.L., Rubin, S., Edelson, M., Rosenblum, N., Bergman, Hernandez, E., . . . Winkel, G. (2007). Coping and communication-enhancing intervention versus supportive counseling for women diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(4), 615–628.
Study Purpose
To compare the efficacy of two psychological interventions to the efficacy of usual care
Intervention Characteristics/Basic Study Process
The coping- and communication-enhancing intervention (CCI) involved challenging assumptions and talking about thoughts and feelings with others. Six hour-long individual sessions were supplemented with a final by-telephone booster session. Session content focused on enhancing coping, educating, and practicing skills; home practice assignments were included. Supportive counseling (SC) involved six hour-long sessions and a by-telephone booster. Rather than topic discussion, SC stressed reactions to cancer, support of existing coping behaviors, and autonomy. Usual care included routine social work consultations. Nineteen experienced therapists provided intervention. Participants were randomly assigned to CCI, SC, or usual care and were assessed preintervention and at three, six, and nine months.
Sample Characteristics
The study included 353 women with primary gynecologic cancer who were in active treatment.
Setting
Two comprehensive cancer centers and eight hospitals
Three states in the United States
Measurement Instruments/Methods
Beck Depression Inventory
Impact of Event Scale
Emotional Expressiveness Questionnaire
Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System subscale
Modified Expectancy Rating Form
A version of Borkovec and Nau’s evaluation of treatment credibility
Conclusions
For all patients, symptoms of depression decreased at first. For patients in CCI and SC, symptoms of depression remained relatively flat after six months, but in usual care they began to increase. Authors reported no significant difference between the interventions’ effects and no impact of either intervention on cancer-specific distress.
Limitations
The RCT was poorly designed, with a high rate of refusal and lack of survey completion.
The sample was primarily Caucasian, young, and had ovarian cancer; this lack of diversity limits generalizability.
Participants were paid $25 for each survey or session, a relatively high compensation.