The impact of combining human and online supportive resources for prostate cancer patients

Discussion

We used a randomized control design to test whether combining computer-based and human interventions would provide greater benefits to prostate cancer patients than either alone, as previous research had shown for breast cancer patients.¹⁸ The computer-based resource was CHESS, a repeatedly evaluated integrated system combining information, social support, and interactive tools to help patients manage their response to disease. The human cancer information mentor intervention combined the expertise of NCI’s Cancer Information Service with the repeated contact more typical of peer mentoring. Previous research with breast cancer patients had shown both interventions to provide greater information, support, and quality-of-life benefits than Internet access alone.¹⁴ This study also compared outcomes obtained by the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, but without predicting a direction of difference.

Tests at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after intervention found instances in which prostate cancer patients assigned to the combined CHESS+Mentor condition experienced more positive quality of life or other outcomes than those assigned to CHESS or Mentor alone, but those differences were scattered rather than consistent. In the direct comparisons of the separate CHESS and Mentor conditions, significance was even rarer, but outcome scores tended to be higher in the Mentor condition than in the CHESS condition.

We noted that differential uptake of the 2 interventions (92% for Mentor vs 78% for CHESS) made interpreting the intent-to-treat analyses problematic, as the mentor’s control of the call schedule meant that far more patients in that condition actually received at least some intervention than in the CHESS condition, where patients used or did not use CHESS entirely at their own volition. This could have biased results in several ways, such as by underestimating the efficacy of the CHESS condition alone and thus inflating the contrast between CHESS alone and CHESS+Mentor. Or the combined condition might have been less different than the Mentor-only condition than intended, thus making for a conservative test of that comparison. However, post hoc analyses of only those participants who had actually used their assigned interventions (and this led to some reclassification of those originally assigned to the CHESS+Mentor condition) produced results that were little different than the intent-to-treat analysis.

Thus, although the combined condition produced some small advantages over either intervention alone, these advantages did not live up to expectations or to previous experience with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ We expected the mentor to be able to reinforce and help interpret what the participants learned from CHESS and their clinicians, and also to advise and direct these patients to be much more effective users of CHESS and other resources. Similarly, we expected that CHESS would make patients much better prepared for mentoring, so that instead of dealing with routine information matters, the mentor could go into greater detail or deal with more complex issues. Their combined effect should have been much larger than each alone, and that was not the case. Perhaps from the prostate cancer patients’ perspective, the 2 interventions seemed to offer similar resources, and a patient benefitted from one or the other but expected no additional gain from attending to both.

The 2 interventions themselves seemed nearly equally effective. The Mentor intervention was significantly stronger than CHESS in only 1 of 27 tests in the intent-to-treat analysis and 2 in the analysis limited to intervention users.

These results for prostate cancer patients are somewhat weaker than those previously reported with breast cancer patients.¹⁷ It is possible that prostate cancer patients (or men in general) are less inclined to seek health information, support, and health self-management than breast cancer patients (or women in general), perhaps because many men perceive decision-making to end with initial treatment, whereas women typically deal with follow-up treatments as well. Use of CHESS and the mentor was modestly lower for the men here than for the women in the previous studies. It is also possible that the CHESS Prostate Cancer module was not as good as the Breast Cancer module, although we are doubtful of that, given the additional tools and improvements added here in response to quite good focus group participants.²²It may also be true that as time goes on, the relative advantage of these interventions over support generally available over the Internet is simply waning – other websites are getting richer and more sophisticated, and users are getting better at searching them out (and avoiding weak or commercially motivated sites).

Although these interventions were experienced by prostate cancer patients in their homes in natural and familiar ways, any experimental manipulation must acknowledge possible problems with external validity. More important here, our recruitment procedures may have produced self-selection to enter or not enter the study in 2 ways that limit its applicability. First, although we thought that offering Internet access to all participants would make participation more likely, the most frequent reason men gave in declining to join the study was “not a computer person.” Our participants were certainly very comfortable with computers and the Internet, and most used them frequently even before the study. Second, it seems that, except for their prostate cancer, our sample was healthy in other respects, as indicated by the low number of other health care visits or surgeries/hospitalization they reported (and “overwhelmed” and “too busy,” 2 common reasons for declining study participations could also be coming from men with more comorbidities). Thus, our sample was probably more computer literate and healthier than the general population of prostate cancer patients.

Nonetheless, for policymakers deciding what information and support interventions to put in place for prostate cancer patients (or more generally for other cancer patients as well), these results have 2 implications. First, since the combination of the mentor and CHESS produced only small advantages over either alone, the extra effort of doing both seems clearly unwarranted for prostate cancer patients. The somewhat larger advantage of the combined intervention shown for breast cancer patients in previous studiesmight warrant using the combination in some circumstances, but even that is not clear-cut.

Finding that CHESS and the cancer information mentor separately provided essentially equal benefits might seem to suggest that they can be regarded as alternatives. However, computer-based services can be provided much more cheaply and scaled up far more readily than services dependent on one-on-one contacts by a highly trained professional. This may direct health care decision makers first toward computer-based services.