1The Research Initiative of Activity Studies and Occupational Therapy, Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark2OPEN – Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark3Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark4Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark5Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark6Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark7University College Zealand, Sorø, Denmark8Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark9Centre for Disability and Mental Vulnerability, The National Board of Social Services, Odense, Denmark
Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Background:People with advanced cancer face difficulties with their everyday activities at home that may reduce their health-related quality of life. To address these difficulties, we developed the ‘Cancer Home-Life Intervention’.Aim:To evaluate the efficacy of the ‘Cancer Home Life-Intervention’ compared with usual care with regard to patients’ performance of, and participation in, everyday activities, and their health-related quality of life.Design and intervention:A randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02356627). The ‘Cancer Home-Life Intervention’ is a brief, tailored, occupational therapy–based and adaptive programme for people with advanced cancer targeting the performance of their prioritised everyday activities.Setting/participants:Home-living adults diagnosed with advanced cancer experiencing functional limitations were recruited from two Danish hospitals. They were assessed at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was activities of daily living motor ability. Secondary outcomes were activities of daily living process ability, difficulty performing prioritised everyday activities, participation restrictions and health-related quality of life.Results:A total of 242 participants were randomised either to the intervention group (n = 121) or the control group (n = 121). No effect was found on the primary outcome (between-group mean change: −0.04 logits (95% confidence interval: −0.23 to 0.15); p = 0.69). Nor was any effect on the secondary outcomes observed.Conclusion:In most cases, the ‘Cancer Home-Life Intervention’ was delivered through only one home visit and one follow-up telephone contact, which not was effective in maintaining or improving participants’ everyday activities and health-related quality of life. Future research should pay even more attention to intervention development and feasibility testing.