Analyzing differences between psychotherapy groups and social support groups for breast cancer patients: Development of an assessment method using video recordings
Objective: When comparing the efficacy of different interventions for cancer patients, there should be certainty that these types are sufficiently different in the way they are actually presented. The aim of the present study is to develop a method for assessing differences between the content of social support groups and experiential-existential therapy groups. Methods: Independent and blind raters assessed video fragments of both intervention types, using a self-developed checklist of five questions. This checklist was first evaluated by a group of experts for appropriateness, importance, and rateability. Results: Three out of the five questions were selected on the basis of these experts' evaluation and on inter-rater reliability. The scores on these questions were used to evaluate five social support groups and six experiential-existential therapy groups for breast cancer patients. According to the independent and blind raters the content of the two intervention forms appeared to be significantly different. Conclusion: The assessment method we developed appeared reliable and valid. Practice implications: Our assessment method is feasible as a check to compare the content of psycho-oncological interventions and can be easily adjusted into a test for other intervention types.
|Keywords||Assessment, Cancer, Experiential-existential therapy, Social support group, Treatment differentiation|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.018, hdl.handle.net/1765/23838|
|Series||Department of Public Health (Erasmus MC)|
|Journal||Patient Education and Counseling|
Garssen, B, Vos, P, de Jager Meezenbroek, E, de Klerk, C, & Visser, A. (2011). Analyzing differences between psychotherapy groups and social support groups for breast cancer patients: Development of an assessment method using video recordings. Patient Education and Counseling, 82(3), 377–383. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.11.018