A psychoeducational intervention program for cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Patients with cervical cancer (CC) have heavy physical and mental burden and have been found to have worse quality of life (QoL). Supportive care for patients with CC is usually completed by general nurses during hospitalization and provides only basic psychological comfort, which is not satisfactory. Methods: Women diagnosed with cervical cancer who were about to undergo surgery were randomly assigned to the control or intervention groups. The control group received routine health education and psychological nursing measures, while the intervention group received a psychoeducational intervention program. The psychoeducational intervention program included a five-session, 24-week full-course group psychoeducational therapy and WeChat instruction. Patients with cervical cancer were assessed with standardized questionnaires, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), Chinese version of Mishel’s Uncertainty in Illness Scale (C-MUIS), and Chinese version of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS-CM). All data were collected at baseline and post-intervention. Results: Patients who received the psychoeducational intervention program reported better physical functioning (p < 0.001), social functioning (p = 0.016) and global health status (p = 0.018), and they felt a lower financial burden (p < 0.001), as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. They felt better about their body image (p = 0.030) and had fewer lymphedema and other symptoms (p = 0.024) (p = 0.001) on the EORTC QLQ-CX24. They reported significantly greater reductions in the ambiguity, inconsistency and unpredictability subscales and overall illness uncertainty than the control group, as measured by the C-MUIS (p < 0.005). They perceived better tangible support, affectionate support and positive social interaction as measured by the MOS-SSS-CM (p < 0.005). Conclusions: The psychoeducational intervention program is feasible with potentially benefiting effects for patients with cervical cancer. Multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are warranted to confirm the results. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2500106354.

Cervical cancer; Psychoeducational intervention; Quality of life; Uncertainty; Social support

[1] Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2018; 143: 22–36.

[2] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021; 71: 209–249.

[3] Zheng RS, Zhang SW, Zeng HM, Wang SM, Sun KX, Chen R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2016. Journal of the National Cancer Center. 2022; 2: 1–9.

[4] Abu-Rustum NR, Yashar CM, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Chon HS, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: cervical cancer, version 1.2020. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2020; 18: 660–666.

[5] Liang C, Liu P, Cui Z, Liang Z, Bin X, Lang J, et al. Effect of laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy on major surgical complications in women with stage IA–IIB cervical cancer in China, 2004–2015. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 156: 115–123.

[6] Stanca M, Căpîlna DM, Trâmbițaș C, Căpîlna ME. The overall quality of life and oncological outcomes following radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer survivors results from a large long-term single-institution study. Cancers. 2022; 14: 317.

[7] Li Q, Lin Y, Zhou H, Xu Y, Xu Y. Supportive care needs and associated factors among Chinese cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2019; 27: 287–295.

[8] Han NN. A longitudinal study on supportive care needs and quality of life of postoperative patients with cervical cancer [master’s thesis]. Shandong University. 2022.

[9] Winkley K, Upsher R, Stahl D, Pollard D, Kasera A, Brennan A, et al. Psychological interventions to improve self-management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment. 2020; 24: 1–232.

[10] Chow KM, Chan CWH, Choi KC, Siu KY, Fung HKS, Sum WM. A theory-driven psycho-educational intervention programme for gynaecological cancer patients during treatment trajectory: a randomised controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology. 2020; 29: 437–443.

[11] Sharma A, Saneha C, Phligbua W. Effects of dyadic interventions on quality of life among cancer patients: an integrative review. Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2021; 8: 115–131.

[12] Cipolletta S, Simonato C, Faccio E. The effectiveness of psychoeducational support groups for women with breast cancer and their caregivers: a mixed methods study. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10: 288.

[13] Weis JB, Gschwendtner K, Giesler JM, Adams L, Wirtz MA. Psychoeducational group intervention for breast cancer survivors: a non-randomized multi-center pilot study. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2020; 28: 3033–3040.

[14] de Almeida NG, Knobf TM, de Oliveira MR, Salvetti MG, Oriá MOB, Fialho AVM. A pilot intervention study to improve sexuality outcomes in breast cancer survivors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2020; 7: 161–166.

[15] Lewis-Smith H, Diedrichs PC, Harcourt D. A pilot study of a body image intervention for breast cancer survivors. Body Image. 2018; 27: 21–31.

[16] Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1993; 85: 365–376.

[17] Coon CD, Schlichting M, Zhang X. Interpreting within-patient changes on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13. The Patient. 2022; 15: 691–702.

[18] Pilz MJ, Gamper E, Efficace F, Arraras JI, Nolte S, Liegl G, et al. EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data for Italy by sex, age and health condition: an analysis of 1,036 individuals. BMC Public Health. 2022; 22: 1040.

[19] Atallah S, Barbera L, Folwell M, Howell D, Liu Z, Croke J. Feasibility of implementing a cervix cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measure in routine ambulatory clinics. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2021; 29: 499–507.

[20] Araya LT, Gebretekle GB, Gebremariam GT, Fenta TG. Reliability and validity of the Amharic version of European organization for research and treatment of cervical cancer module for the assessment of health related quality of life in women with cervical cancer in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2019; 17: 13.

[21] Wu JX, Luo XQ, Liu LF. Uncertainty in illness of patients with panic disorder for first vist to psychiatry department and its influencing factors. Chinese Nursing Research. 2020; 34: 2775–2778. (In Chinese)

[22] Liu Q, Tang MX, Liu GY. Study on correlation between uncertainty in illness and selfefficacy in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Chinese Nursing Research. 2018; 32: 72–75. (In Chinese)

[23] Yu DSF, Lee DTF, Woo J. Psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the medical outcomes study social support survey (MOS-SSS-C). Research in Nursing & Health. 2004; 27: 135–143.

[24] Li T, Wang HF, Fang W, Lv Q, Wang YF, Zhang Q. The mediating effect of experiential avoidance between medical social support and demoralization syndrome in breast cancer patients. Journal of Nursing Science. 2022; 37: 79–82. (In Chinese)

[25] Gitonga I, Desmond D, Duda N, Maguire R. Impact of connected health interventions on psychological wellbeing and quality of life in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Psycho-Oncology. 2022; 31: 1621–1636.

[26] Benedict C, Walsh EA, Penedo FJ. Psychosocial interventions in cancer. Psychological Aspects of Cancer. 2022; 29: 159–196.

[27] Amo-Antwi K, Agambire R, Konney TO, Nguah SB, Dassah ET, Nartey Y, et al. Health-related quality of life among cervical cancer survivors at a tertiary hospital in Ghana. PLOS ONE. 2022; 17: e0268831.

[28] Zhang Y, Sun S, Ding J, Hua K. The effect of different surgical methods on female and male sexual activity and marital quality in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Sexual Medicine. 2020; 8: 307–314.

[29] Wang HZ, He RJ, Zhuang XR, Xue YW, Lu Y. Assessment of long-term sexual function of cervical cancer survivors after treatment: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2022; 48: 2888–2895.

[30] Graugaard C. Sexuality as a health-promoting factor—theoretical and clinical considerations. Nature Reviews Urology. 2017; 14: 577–578.

[31] Zhao HM, Mao J, Li J. Introduction of uncertainty in illness theory status quo and analysis of its application. Chinese Nursing Research. 2019; 33: 795–799. (In Chinese).

[32] Wang SJ, Jiang Y, Jing JH, Chen JJ, li J, Wang JF. Correlation study between disease uncertainty and social support in patients with cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy. Journal of Modern Medicine & Health. 2022; 38: 4210–4213,4219. (In Chinese)