Discussions
’, breast cancer
BREAST CANCER
The findings indicated that, over time, those who used TICAA and ACS websites showed significant within group reduction in their needs from the baseline to post 4 weeks and to post 12 weeks. Compared with those who used the ACS website alone, those who used TICAA and ACS website had significant increases in their quality of life from the baseline to post 12 weeks, but no significant changes in symptoms. This study supports that a 12-week culturally tailored virtual intervention using computers and mobile devices could improve the survivorship experience of Asian American breast cancer survivors. The findings of this study are consistent with the literature reporting that virtual coaching and support programs could change health behaviors, and consequently improve health outcomesThis study also found that TICAA with the ACS website had larger decreases in the needs of the participants from the baseline to 4 weeks and slight increases from 4 weeks to 12 weeks. Also, the study found that those who used TICAA and ACS had larger increases in the quality of life from the baseline to 4 weeks and smaller decreases from 4 weeks to 12 weeks. These findings could be interpreted in several ways. First, it could mean that a short intervention period (4 weeks in this study) would work better for this type of virtual interventions to decrease Asian American breast cancer survivors’ needs and improve their quality of life. In the literature, 12 weeks are a typical period of technology-based interventionsThe finding that the effects on the symptom scores were not statistically significant over time and between groups could be interpreted in several ways. First, it could mean that symptom distress might not be easily changed during a short intervention period as discussed above, which would require a different approach than a short-time technology-based information and coaching/support program. Second, MSAS-SF might not be sensitive enough to measure the symptom distress among breast cancer survivors because many of the items measure acute symptoms such as nausea/vomiting that would be applicable only to those undergoing treatments. Finally, the mean symptom distress scores of both groups at the pre-test were too low and created a floor effect that made it difficult to detect any intervention effects.This study has several limitations. First, there was a sizeable segment of the recruited participants who were not contactable after successfully going through the screening process; thus, there could exist some potential selection biases as typically seen in clinical trials