UCLA

We conducted a nationwide, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of Healing Choices, a novel interactive education and treatment decision program rooted in the self-regulation theory framework, on decisional conflict and psychological distress at 2-month post-intervention in women with early-stage breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive the National Cancer Institutes standard print material (control) or standard print material plus Healing Choices (the intervention). The final sample at 2-month post-intervention consisted of N = 388 participants (intervention: n = 197; control: n = 191). There were no significant differences in decisional conflict or its subscales; however, psychological distress was higher in the intervention group (16.09 ± 10.25) than in the control group (14.37 ± 8.73) at follow-up, B = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.80], t(383) = 1.94, p = .05. Upon further examination, we found that engagement with the intervention was low-41%-prompting as-treated analyses, which showed no difference in distress between users and nonusers and a positive impact of Healing Choices on decisional conflict: decisional support subscale: users (35.36 ± 15.50) versus nonusers (39.67 ± 15.99), B = -4.31 (s.e. = 2.09), p = .04. Multiple recommendations for moving ahead stem from this work: (i) intent-to-treat analyses appeared to cause distress, cautioning against interventions that may lead to information overload; (ii) engagement with the intervention is low and future work needs to focus on increasing engagement and monitoring it throughout the study; and (iii) in studies with low engagement, as-treated analyses are critical.