Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Nov;21(11):1195-204.
doi: 10.1002/pon.2013. Epub 2011 Jul 12.

Factors associated with attrition from a randomized controlled trial of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer

Allison J Applebaum  1 , Wendy G Lichtenthal, Hayley A Pessin, Julia N Radomski, N Simay Gökbayrak, Aviva M Katz, Barry Rosenfeld, William Breitbart
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Factors associated with attrition from a randomized controlled trial of meaning-centered group psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer

Allison J Applebaum et al. Psychooncology. 2012 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: The generalizability of palliative care intervention research is often limited by high rates of study attrition. This study examined factors associated with attrition from a randomized controlled trial comparing meaning-centered group psychotherapy (MCGP), an intervention designed to help advanced cancer patients sustain or enhance their sense of meaning to the supportive group psychotherapy (SGP), a standardized support group.

Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumor cancers (n = 153) were randomized to eight sessions of either the MCGP or SGP. They completed assessments of psychosocial, spiritual, and physical well-being pretreatment, midtreatment, and 2 months post-treatment. Attrition was assessed in terms of the percent of participants who failed to complete these assessments, and demographic, psychiatric, medical, and study-related correlates of attrition were examined for the participants in each of these categories.

Results: The rates of attrition at these time points were 28.1%, 17.7%, and 11.1%, respectively; 43.1% of the participants (66 of 153) completed the entire study. The most common reason for dropout was patients feeling too ill. Attrition rates did not vary significantly between study arms. The participants who dropped out pretreatment reported less financial concerns than post-treatment dropouts, and the participants who dropped out of the study midtreatment had poorer physical health than treatment completers. There were no other significant associations between attrition and any demographic, medical, psychiatric, or study-related variables.

Conclusions: These findings highlight the challenge of maintaining advanced cancer patients in longitudinal research and suggest the need to consider alternative approaches (e.g., telemedicine) for patients who might benefit from group interventions but are too ill to travel.

Keywords: attrition; cancer; meaning; palliative care; psychotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flowchart and defined attrition groups
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jordhoy MS, Kaasa S, Fayers P, et al. Challenges in palliative care research; recruitment, attrition and compliance: experience from a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 1999;13(4):299–310. - PubMed
    1. Ewing G, Rogers M, Barclay S, et al. Recruiting patients into a primary care based study of palliative care: why is it so difficult? Palliat Med. 2004;18(5):452–459. - PubMed
    1. Sherman DW, McSherry CB, Parkas V, et al. Recruitment and retention in a longitudinal palliative care study. Appl Nurs Res. 2005;18(3):167–177. - PubMed
    1. Steinhauser KE, Clipp EC, Hays JC, et al. Identifying, recruiting, and retaining seriously-ill patients and their care-givers in longitudinal research. Palliat Med. 2006;20(8):745–754. - PubMed
    1. Deeg DJ, van Tilburg T, Smit JH, et al. Attrition in the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. The effect of differential inclusion in side studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(4):319–328. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms