What web-based intervention for chronic cancer-related fatigue works best for whom? Explorative moderation analyses of a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Approximately 25% of cancer patients suffer from chronic cancer-related fatigue (CCRF), which is a complex, multifactorial condition. While there are evidence-based interventions, it remains unclear what treatment works best for the individual patient. This study explored whether baseline characteristics moderated the effect of web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (eMBCT) versus ambulant activity feedback (AAF) and a psycho-education control group (PE) on fatigue in patients suffering from CCRF. Methods In a randomized controlled trial, participant suffering from CCRF participated in either eMBCT, AAF, or PE. Complete data of the treatment-adherent sample (≥ 6 sessions) was used to explore whether sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics at baseline moderated the intervention effect on fatigue severity at 6 months. Results A trend showed that baseline fatigue severity and fatigue catastrophizing moderated the intervention effect. That is, at low levels of fatigue severity and catastrophizing, patients benefited more from AAF than from eMBCT and at high levels of fatigue severity and catastrophizing, patients benefited more from eMBCT than from PE. Conclusions This study found some preliminary evidence on what treatment works best for the individual suffering from CCRF. These findings emphasize the potential gain in effectiveness of personalizing treatment. An alternative approach that might help us further in answering the question “what treatment works best for whom?” is discussed.