Search

Introduction: An important gap between randomized efficacy research and real-world implementation of complementary therapies is the role of patient preferences in influencing engagement and outcome. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of patient preference on health outcomes, but few have investigated the factors associated with preference for interventions, which may be critical to assure the success of program implementation. The current study sought to explore the factors associated with patient preference in an ongoing randomized preference-based trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) versus Tai Chi/qigong (TCQ) (the Mindfulness and Tai Chi/qigong in Cancer Health [MATCH] study). Materials and Methods: A multi-method study design was used. A subsample of participants were purposely selected from the ongoing MATCH study to have representation from both intervention arms and from both men and women across different age groups. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the factors influencing initial patient preference. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using inductive thematic analysis. The treatment acceptability and preference measure was administered to determine patients' ratings of acceptability and credibility of both preferred and nonpreferred interventions. Results: A total of 13 participants were interviewed prior to program attendance, with 8 (62%) preferring TCQ and 5 (38%) choosing MBCR. Major themes related to patients' preference for intervention included: (1) expectations about the preferred intervention; (2) knowledge of the intervention; (3) past experiences with the intervention; and (4) self-efficacy. Participants' mean treatment acceptability scores were higher for their preferred program than their nonpreferred program. Conclusion: Understanding the factors that influence cancer survivors' preference for mind-body interventions can augment health care providers' knowledge of the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of interventions in clinical settings, as well as help patients make informed treatment decisions and improve satisfaction and outcomes. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03641222.

The aim of this study was to highlight features of pragmatic real-world integrative oncology research by applying the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) criteria to an ongoing integrative oncology clinical trial. The ongoing trial is a preference-based randomized comparative effectiveness trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) versus t'ai chi/qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors (the Mindfulness and T'ai Chi for Cancer Health [MATCH] study). The primary outcome of the MATCH study is distress, and secondary outcomes are quality of life, sleep disturbance, and physical functioning. The clinical trial is being undertaken at tertiary care cancer centers across two sites in Canada: Calgary (AB) and Toronto (ON), with a sample of 600 cancer survivors who have finished all cancer treatments and are distressed.The MATCH trial was scored on the explanatory-pragmatic continuum for each of the nine domains of the PRECIS-2 criteria on a scale of 1-5, and was rated as more explanatory than pragmatic, despite initial design efforts being more pragmatic. Areas that were least pragmatic were methods of recruitment, follow-up, and intervention delivery. The more pragmatic areas were setting, outcomes, and data analysis.More efforts toward conducting pragmatic trials are needed in the field of integrative oncology, as cancer-care institutions and policy makers are looking for sustainable interventions within already established treatment models. The PRECIS-2 criteria can help researchers meet these goals in the planning stages of trial development.