Reese Jennifer Barsky, Sorice Kristen A, Oppenheimer Natalie M, Smith Katherine Clegg, Bober Sharon L, Bantug Elissa T, Schwartz Sharon C, Porter Laura S
Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Transl Behav Med. 2020 May 20;10(2):435-440. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby129.
Recruitment challenges hinder behavioral intervention research in cancer survivors. The purpose was to examine the reasons for declining and intervention preferences of study-eligible breast cancer survivors declining a trial of a four-session couple-based Intimacy Enhancement intervention (refusers) and explore whether refusers differed from participants on key characteristics. Partnered, post-treatment breast cancer survivors reporting sexual concerns who were eligible for but declined participation in the intervention trial were approached to complete a standardized 5-min telephone survey assessing reasons for declining and support preferences. Demographic, clinical, and sexual concerns information were collected during screening. Trial participants and refusers were compared on key variables of age, race, hormone therapy use, time since treatment, level of sexual concerns, and recruitment method using t-tests or chi-square tests. Among the 31 women who declined the trial and completed the survey, the most common reasons for declining were time commitment (74%) and partner noninterest (32%). Most (61%) reported that the telephone format played little to no role in their refusal. Eighty-one percent wanted their partners involved in a program addressing sexual concerns. The two most preferred resources were informational websites (45%) and meeting with a professional (26%). Trial participants and refusers did not differ on any key factors examined. Developing intimacy interventions that are very brief, partner-optional, or that use stepped care may bolster uptake. The methods used to examine study-eligible candidates' needs and preferences could be employed in other health populations, thus having broader implications for research design.
招募方面的挑战阻碍了癌症幸存者的行为干预研究。目的是调查符合研究条件的乳腺癌幸存者拒绝参加一项为期四节的基于夫妻的亲密关系增强干预试验（拒绝者）的原因和干预偏好，并探讨拒绝者在关键特征上是否与参与者存在差异。研究人员联系了有伴侣、处于治疗后阶段且报告有性方面问题、符合干预试验条件但拒绝参与的乳腺癌幸存者，让她们完成一项标准化的5分钟电话调查，评估拒绝原因和支持偏好。在筛查过程中收集了人口统计学、临床和性方面问题的信息。使用t检验或卡方检验，对试验参与者和拒绝者在年龄、种族、激素治疗使用情况、治疗后时间、性方面问题的程度以及招募方式等关键变量上进行了比较。在31名拒绝试验并完成调查的女性中，拒绝的最常见原因是时间投入（74%）和伴侣不感兴趣（32%）。大多数人（61%）表示电话形式在她们的拒绝中几乎没有起到作用。81%的人希望她们的伴侣参与解决性方面问题的项目。最受欢迎的两种资源是信息网站（45%）和与专业人士会面（26%）。在研究的任何关键因素上，试验参与者和拒绝者没有差异。开发非常简短、可选择伴侣或采用逐步护理的亲密关系干预措施可能会提高参与率。用于检查符合研究条件的候选人需求和偏好的方法可应用于其他健康人群，因此对研究设计具有更广泛的意义。
