BMJ open · 2022
SafeSpace: what is the feasibility and acceptability of a codesigned virtual reality intervention, incorporating compassionate mind training, to support people undergoing cancer treatment in a clinical setting?
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.
O'Gara Geraldine, Murray Lisa, Georgopoulou Sofia, Anstiss Tim, Macquarrie Andrew, Wheatstone Pete, Bellman Barbie, Gilbert Paul, Steed Anthony, Wiseman Theresa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The SafeSpace study codesigned and tested a virtual reality (VR) intervention, incorporating relaxation and compassionate mind training to determine acceptability/feasibility in an oncology setting and evaluate impact on physical/psychological well-being and quality of life.
DESIGN: A two-phase study. Phase I determined key characteristics using an experienced-based codesign approach. Phase II evaluated the intervention using various measures and qualitative interviews in a mixed methods approach. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse measures data and framework analysis to analyse interviews.
SETTING: A specialist cancer centre, UK.
PARTICIPANTS: 11 in phase I and 21 in phase II. Participants were in cancer treatment, recovery or palliative care.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: Primary outcome: acceptability of the intervention, assessed by >60% uptake of three sessions.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES: impact on psychological well-being using EQ-5D/QLQ-C30, Profile of Mood Scale, Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, Depression and Anxiety Severity Scale 21, Self-Compassion Scale, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire and a locally developed questionnaire to capture self-compassion post use. Physiological impact was assessed by change in heart rate (HR)/HR variability and electrodermal activity (EDA).
RESULTS: Twenty participants (mean age=48.7 years; SD=16.87); 65% (n=13) completed three sessions. Mental well-being improved following each use and from baseline to after session 3 (VR 1-z=2.846, p≤0.01; VR 2-z=2.501, p≤0.01; VR 3-z=2.492, p≤0.01). There was statistically significant difference in mean scores for EDA at mid-session and post session compared with pre session (F (1.658, 4.973)=13.364, p<0.05). There was statistically significant reduction in stress levels from baseline to post session 3. Participants found the intervention acceptable and highlighted areas for development.
CONCLUSION: The intervention is acceptable and feasible and has shown positive effects on mental well-being/stress in the oncology setting. Larger studies are needed to confirm findings.
DESIGN: A two-phase study. Phase I determined key characteristics using an experienced-based codesign approach. Phase II evaluated the intervention using various measures and qualitative interviews in a mixed methods approach. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse measures data and framework analysis to analyse interviews.
SETTING: A specialist cancer centre, UK.
PARTICIPANTS: 11 in phase I and 21 in phase II. Participants were in cancer treatment, recovery or palliative care.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: Primary outcome: acceptability of the intervention, assessed by >60% uptake of three sessions.
SECONDARY OUTCOMES: impact on psychological well-being using EQ-5D/QLQ-C30, Profile of Mood Scale, Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, Depression and Anxiety Severity Scale 21, Self-Compassion Scale, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire and a locally developed questionnaire to capture self-compassion post use. Physiological impact was assessed by change in heart rate (HR)/HR variability and electrodermal activity (EDA).
RESULTS: Twenty participants (mean age=48.7 years; SD=16.87); 65% (n=13) completed three sessions. Mental well-being improved following each use and from baseline to after session 3 (VR 1-z=2.846, p≤0.01; VR 2-z=2.501, p≤0.01; VR 3-z=2.492, p≤0.01). There was statistically significant difference in mean scores for EDA at mid-session and post session compared with pre session (F (1.658, 4.973)=13.364, p<0.05). There was statistically significant reduction in stress levels from baseline to post session 3. Participants found the intervention acceptable and highlighted areas for development.
CONCLUSION: The intervention is acceptable and feasible and has shown positive effects on mental well-being/stress in the oncology setting. Larger studies are needed to confirm findings.