Group versus individual stress management intervention in breast cancer patients for fatigue and emotional reactivity: A randomised intervention study

Abstract

Background. Fatigue and emotional reactivity are common among women suffering from breast cancer and might detrimentally affect these women's quality of life. This study evaluates if the stress management delivered either in a group or individual setting would improve fatigue and emotional reactivity among women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Material and methods. Participants (n = 304) who reported elevated levels of distress at three-month post-inclusion were randomised between stress management in a group (GSM) (n = 77) or individual (ISM) (n = 78) setting. Participation was declined by 149 women. Participants completed the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20) and the Everyday Life Stress Scale (ELSS) at the time of inclusion, 3- and 12-month post-inclusion. Analyses were made according to intention to treat and per-protocol principles. Mann-Whitney tests were used to examine differences between the two intervention groups.

Results. No significant differences were detected between the GSM and ISM groups on fatigue or emotional reactivity. In addition, there were no changes over time for these outcomes.

Conclusions. There were no differences between the two intervention arms with reference to fatigue or emotional reactivity; however, a clinically interesting finding was the low number of women who were interested in participating in a psychosocial intervention. This finding may have clinical implications when psychosocial support is offered to women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer and also in the planning of future studies.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the patients who participated in the study and all the staff at the regional hospitals who made this study possible. We would also like to thank Gunilla Burell who helped us to develop the intervention. We are grateful to Henrik Renlund and Lars Berglund at the Uppsala Clinical Research Unit, for help with the statistical analyses. Lastly, we would like to thank the Swedish Cancer Society (no.: 96 2577), the Swedish Research Council (no.:521-2009-3129) and the Regional Research Council for the Uppsala-Örebro Region (no. RFR-156421) for funding the study.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.