- Women with metastatic breast cancer, USA, 2011-2014
- Survey name
- Unnamed study
- N = 30
- Non Response
- Questionnaire: Conputer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI)
- Authors's Label
- Linking affect and coping (LILAC) intervention
- Our Classification
- Because there were no differences between in-person intervention and online intervention, the groups were combined in the analyses.
1A: N = 14 (analyzed n = 10)
1B: N = 12 (analyzed N = 9), 0: N = 13 (analyzed N = 11)
- Participants were randomly assigned to:
1A. IN-PERSON INTERVENTION.
The intervention consisted of 5 weekly 1 hour sessions with a trained facilitor in which the participants learned 8 empirically based skills: (a) noticing
positive events, (b) capitalizing on or savoring positive events,(c) gratitude,(d) indfulness, (e) positive reappraisal, (f) focusing on personal strengths, (g) setting and working toward
attainable goals, and (h) small acts of kindness. At each session, the participants were taught up to 3 of the skills and were
asked to practice each skill as home practice every day until the next weekly session.
1B. ONLINE INTERVENTION.
Same content as 1A, but delivered online through self-paced modules. Specifically, on the first 1 to 2 days of each week, the online‐intervention participants were able to access an online lesson that introduced that week's skill(s) and were asked to complete their home practice between sessions. New lessons became available 7 days after beginning the previous lesson.
0. ATTENTION MATCHED CONTROL.
The participants had 5 hourly one‐on‐one sessions with the same trained facilitators
as those in the intervention condition. The control sessions consisted of an interview without a didactic portion or skill practice. In each weekly session, the facilitator asked the control participants qualitative and quantitative questions that centered on a theme:(a) life history, (b)use of complementary and alternative medicine, (c) diet and exercise, (d) social networks, and (e) meaning and spirituality. Home practice
for the control group consisted of completing daily emotion reports
Observed Relation with Happiness
Intervention 1,25 1,78 1,88 +0,53 +0,63
Control 0,80 1,34 1,60 +0,54 +0,80
-DIFFERENCE -0,01 -0,17
Intervention +6,7% + 7,9%
Control +6,8% +10,0%
-DIFFERENCE -0,1% - 2,1%
The increase in mean affect balance scores in both groups are mainly due to a reduction in mean negative affect scores
Happiness measured at:
T0 = baseline
T1 = post intervention
T2 = 1 month follow-up