• Barbara Given, Charles W Given, Alla Sikorskii, Mei You, Ruth McCorkle, and Victoria Champion.
• College of Nursing, Michigan State University in East Lansing, USA.
• Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009 Nov 1; 36 (6): E293-302.

Purpose/ObjectivesTwo analytical approaches are described for a randomized trial testing interventions for symptom management.DesignTo compare an intention-to-treat with a perprotocol approach.SettingPatients were accrued from six cancer centers.Sample94 men and 140 women with solid tumors were accrued.MethodsAn intention-to-treat approach (as randomized) and per-protocol analyses (at least one symptom reaching threshold and one follow-up intervention) were compared. The analysis determines how each approach affects results. A two-arm, six-contact, eight-week trial was implemented. In one arm, nurses followed a cognitive behavioral protocol. In the second arm, a non-nurse coach referred patients to a symptom management guide.Main Research VariablesTrial arm; summed severity scores; interference-based severity categories at intake, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks; site; and stage of cancer.FindingsEach arm produced a reduction in severity at 10 and 16 weeks with no differences between arms. In the per-protocol analyses, symptoms reported at the first contact required more time to resolve. Older patients exposed to the nurse arm resolved in fewer contacts.ConclusionsThe intention-to-treat analyses indicated that both arms were successful but offered few insights into how symptoms or patients influenced severity. Per-protocol analyses (intervention and dose), when, and which strategies affected symptoms.Implications For NursingEach analytical strategy serves a purpose. Intention-to-treat defines the success of a trial. Per-protocol analyses allow nurses to pose clinical questions about response and dose of the intervention. Nurses should participate in analyses of interventions to understand the conditions where interventions are successful.

19 keywords...

hide…