Cancer treatment and research communications · 2026
Development and pilot feasibility of Kit-CAT, a serious-game-supported consultation for discussing complementary and alternative therapies in breast cancer care.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pinsault Nicolas, Girard Pauline, Monvoisin Richard, Eychenne Claire, Genty-Vermorel Céline, Druart Leo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with early breast cancer frequently consider complementary therapies, yet structured, ethical discussions remain uncommon. Breast cancer is a particularly relevant context for such discussions because care pathways are prolonged, multimodal, and often associated with uncertainty, treatment-related symptoms, and high informational burden.
AIM: We developed and pilot tested Kit-CAT, a serious-game-supported consultation to scaffold evidence-based, patient-centered conversations on complementary therapies.
METHODS: After developing Kit-CAT through an iterative process including clinicians, researchers, and patients, we conducted a monocentric before-and-after pilot (6-month periods). Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were included at diagnosis; the intervention added a 90-minute primary-care consultation. Feasibility was assessed across recruitment, delivery, and acceptability. No formal a priori threshold for feasibility success was specified. Outcomes included feasibility indicators, health literacy (HLQ), attitudes to CAT (CHBQ), CAT use, and satisfaction at baseline and 6 months.
RESULTS: Of the 44 initially included participants, 41 were retained in the baseline analysis set and 38 provided at least one 6-month follow-up data point (25 in the control group and 13 in the intervention group). Recruitment to the intervention proved challenging: during the intervention phase, 49 eligible patients declined participation. Recruitment feasibility was therefore limited under the tested implementation conditions. Across several HLQ subscales, small descriptive trends in a favourable direction were observed in the intervention group, contrasting with modest declines in the control group; attitudes toward CAT were highly positive at baseline and remained stable. Satisfaction with the care pathway was high in both groups, with the intervention group numerically higher (92%vs 78% satisfied/very satisfied). No serious adverse events were reported; recorded adverse events were not considered related to Kit-CAT.
CONCLUSION: Kit-CAT was deliverable and acceptable among consenting participants, but recruitment feasibility was limited, mainly because of early timing after diagnosis, off-site delivery, and scheduling burden. Descriptive health-literacy trends should be interpreted as exploratory. Future multicentre studies should first optimize implementation format before assessing effectiveness in an adequately powered design.
AIM: We developed and pilot tested Kit-CAT, a serious-game-supported consultation to scaffold evidence-based, patient-centered conversations on complementary therapies.
METHODS: After developing Kit-CAT through an iterative process including clinicians, researchers, and patients, we conducted a monocentric before-and-after pilot (6-month periods). Women with non-metastatic breast cancer were included at diagnosis; the intervention added a 90-minute primary-care consultation. Feasibility was assessed across recruitment, delivery, and acceptability. No formal a priori threshold for feasibility success was specified. Outcomes included feasibility indicators, health literacy (HLQ), attitudes to CAT (CHBQ), CAT use, and satisfaction at baseline and 6 months.
RESULTS: Of the 44 initially included participants, 41 were retained in the baseline analysis set and 38 provided at least one 6-month follow-up data point (25 in the control group and 13 in the intervention group). Recruitment to the intervention proved challenging: during the intervention phase, 49 eligible patients declined participation. Recruitment feasibility was therefore limited under the tested implementation conditions. Across several HLQ subscales, small descriptive trends in a favourable direction were observed in the intervention group, contrasting with modest declines in the control group; attitudes toward CAT were highly positive at baseline and remained stable. Satisfaction with the care pathway was high in both groups, with the intervention group numerically higher (92%vs 78% satisfied/very satisfied). No serious adverse events were reported; recorded adverse events were not considered related to Kit-CAT.
CONCLUSION: Kit-CAT was deliverable and acceptable among consenting participants, but recruitment feasibility was limited, mainly because of early timing after diagnosis, off-site delivery, and scheduling burden. Descriptive health-literacy trends should be interpreted as exploratory. Future multicentre studies should first optimize implementation format before assessing effectiveness in an adequately powered design.