Table 4.
Instruments, underlying concepts, and timing
| Concept | Measured byb | Timinga | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 (Before randomization) | T1 (T0 + 12 weeks) | T2 (T0 + 24 weeks) | ||
| Outcome measures used for the primary endpoints | ||||
| Emotional Functioning |
EORTC [14–16] 10 emotional functioning items described by Jabbarian et al. [15]. For patients (10 items): For caregivers (10 items): |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Self-efficacy |
The Lewis´ Cancer self-efficacy scale [17] (validated by Northouse [5]) For patients (17 items) For caregivers (17 items) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Outcome measures used for the secondary endpoints | ||||
| Quality of life (also covers additional secondary outcomes such as hopelessness, anxiety, depression, etc.) |
For patients (23 items): - EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL [18] plustwo social functioning items (#26, 27) + one item about overall health (#29) from EORTC QLQ-C30 [19] - Social well-being scale from FACT-G [20] For caregivers (35 items): - The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) [21] |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Benefits of illness |
Benefits of illness scale [22] For patients (5 items) For caregivers (5 items) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Coping |
A shortened version of Brief Cope [23] (#1–3,5-10,13-16,19-21,23–26) For patients (20 items) For caregivers (20 items) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Dyad communication |
The five items ‘Active engagement scale’ from the ´Ways of giving support questionnaire´ [24]. Three scales (10 items) from the ‘Dyadic Coping Inventory’ [25]: ‘Stress communication by oneself’, ‘Stress communication by partner’ and ‘Evaluation of dyadic coping’. For patients (15 items) For caregivers (15 items) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Health economic measures |
For patients (23 items) For caregivers (14 items) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Background characteristics | ||||
| Socio demographics, illness-related factors, social factors |
A mix of socio-demographic items from different studies (self-constructed): - Sex, age, relationship status, living situation, having children, educational level, employment status, total monthly net income, financial difficulties related to physical condition or medical treatment, private medical insurance, religion, member of a minority ethnic group, dyad’s relationship For patients (14 items) For caregivers (15 items) |
✓ | ||
| Other aspects evaluated | ||||
| Items about computer skills |
Three FOCUS items about computer skills (self-constructed) For patients (2 items) For caregivers (2 items) |
✓ | ||
| Process evaluation |
FOCUS items asking about experience and satisfaction with the intervention. (self-constructed) For patients (12 items) For caregivers (12 items) |
✓ | ||
| Process evaluation |
Experiences with the intervention: (self-constructed) - Interviews with patients and family caregivers - Interviews with nurses delivering the intervention |
✓ | ||
|
Fidelity: FOCUS+ (self-constructed) Session characteristics (e.g. length, timing), random sample intervention checklists, random sample audio-taped intervention sessions |
✓ | |||
|
Fidelity: iFOCUS (self-constructed) Data from web-based program (e.g. number of sessions logged into, time taken to complete session) |
✓ | |||
| Routine data on recruitment (self-constructed) (e.g. potential participants, initial engagement, eligible participants, enrolment) | ✓ | |||
aFor T1, questionnaires can be filled in between T0 + 12 weeks minimum and T0 + 16 weeks maximum. For T2, questionnaires can be filled in between T0 + 24 weeks minimum and T0 + 28 weeks maximum
bAll measures were validated in each of the participating countries