Methods: A double-blinded randomised control trial involving 200 participants between the ages of 20 to 65 years old breast cancer patients was performed. Apart from those who refused participation, patients with chronic diseases and extreme baseline depression scores were also excluded. The control group received standard care twice a week from the social welfare services team facilitator compared to the intervention group that received additional psycho-education intervention programme (PEIP). The coping strategies were measured using the Brief-COPE inventory consisting of 28 items. It was administered on the second and 12th week of trial. The primary end point was compared between pre- and post-intervention. The effect of the intervention between groups, time, and covariates was measured using the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) analysis.
Results: The mean (SD) of adaptive coping score among the intervention group increased from 5.63 (1.3) at baseline to 6.42 (1.3) at post-intervention. The mean avoidant coping score was 3.87 (1.1) at baseline but reduced to 3.69 (0.8) post-intervention. GLMM showed that women who received the intervention reported significantly higher usage of the adaptive coping strategies after attending the programme (B=0.921, p <0.001).
Conclusion: PEIP significantly improved knowledge of breast cancer patients. Thus, this programme may be considered as a part of the healthcare services in Jordan towards improving the adaptive coping strategies among breast cancer patients, which may point towards the potential for these services to increase adaptive coping strategies among patients in Jordan.
Implications for Public Health: PEIP may be considered as psychosocial intervention in public health and healthcare setting to address rising concerns on quality of care among breast cancer patients.
Materials and Methods: In two tertiary care selected hospitals, the included diabetic patients were randomly divided into two study arms. In the control group, 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment from hospitals were included. However, in the intervention group, those 200 patients who were receiving usual treatment along with counseling sessions from pharmacists under the Diabetes Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (DMTAC) program were included. The study continued for 1 year, and there were four follow-up visits for both study arms. A prevalidated data collection form was used to measure the improvement in predictors of diabetic foot in included patients. Data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software program, version 24.0.
Results: With the average decrease of 1.97% of HbA1c values in the control group and 3.43% in the intervention group, the univariate and multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant difference between both of the study arms in the improvement of predictors belonging to the diabetic foot (P < 0.05). The proportion of patients without any signs and symptoms of the diabetic foot in the intervention group was 91.7%, which increased from 42.3% at baseline (P < 0.05). However, this proportion in the control group was 76.9% at the fourth follow-up, from 48.3% at baseline (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: A statistically significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of diabetic foot was observed in the intervention group at the end of 1 year. The progression of diabetic foot was significantly decreased in the pharmacist intervention group.