Examining key sociodemographic characteristics of adolescents and young adults with cancer: A post hoc analysis of the Promoting Resilience in Stress Management randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Background: The “Promoting Resilience in Stress Management” intervention is a skills-based, early palliative care intervention with demonstrated efficacy in adolescents and young adults with cancer. Aim: Utilizing data from a randomized clinical trial of Promoting Resilience in Stress Management versus Usual Care, we examined whether response to Promoting Resilience in Stress Management differed across key sociodemographic characteristics. Design: Adolescents and young adults with cancer completed patient-reported outcome measures of resilience, hope, benefit-finding, quality of life, and distress at enrollment and 6 months. Participants were stratified by sex, age, race, and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage based on home address (Area Deprivation Index scores with 8–10 = most disadvantaged). Differences in the magnitude of effect sizes between stratification subgroups were noted using a conservative cutoff of d > 0.5. Setting/participants: Participants were 12 to 25 years old, English-speaking, and receiving cancer care at Seattle Children’s Hospital. Results: In total, 92 adolescents and young adults (48 Promoting Resilience in Stress Management, 44 Usual Care) completed baseline measures. They were 43% female, 73% 12 to 17 years old, 64% White, and 24% most disadvantaged. Effect sizes stratified by sex, age, and race were in an expected positive direction and of similar magnitude for the majority of outcomes with some exceptions in magnitude of treatment effect. Those who lived in less disadvantaged neighborhoods benefited more from Promoting Resilience in Stress Management, and those living in most disadvantaged neighborhoods benefited less. Conclusion: The “Promoting Resilience in Stress Management” intervention demonstrated a positive effect for the majority of outcomes regardless of sex, age, and race. It may not be as helpful for adolescents and young adults living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Future studies must confirm its generalizability and integrate opportunities for improvement by targeting individual needs.