Hope-enhancement workshops in the SWOG Cancer Research Network: Feasibility of an online intervention.
Authors: Feldman David B. , O'Rourke Mark Allen , Corn Dvora , Subbiah Ishwaria Mohan , Manasseh Michal , Hudson Matthew F. , Agarwal Rajiv , Bakitas Marie , Fraser Valerie L. , Fowler Lauren A. , Corn Benjamin W. 
Published: September 2021

210 Background: Research shows that healthcare professionals’ personal hopefulness is associated with burnout and life satisfaction, highlighting the value of hope-enhancement interventions. Feldman and Dreher developed a single-session hope intervention, but this has been used rarely with oncology professionals, and only in in-person format (Shah, Ferguson, Corn et al.). Given SWOG Cancer Research Network’s commitment to assessing hope-enhancement approaches and the need for online interventions given COVID-19, we report a feasibility study of a virtual hope workshop in SWOG members. Methods: The workshop was a single 2-hour session delivered live via Zoom to 6-8 participants at a time. The workshop comprises 3 components: A brief lecture on hope and two exercises—a “hope mapping” exercise (aided by a smartphone app created for the workshop) and a hope visualization exercise—both designed to build hope for a life goal of each participant’s choosing. 29 SWOG members participated. A link to post-workshop measures was sent to participants, which they were given a week to complete. Measures included Thanarajasingamet al’s 5-item Was-it-Worth-it (WIWI) measure; Kirkpatrick’s 4-item Training Evaluation Model (TEM; reaction, learning, behavior, results); and an item assessing the degree to which participants believe concepts from the workshop should be integrated into SWOG studies. Results: In all, 25 participants (86%) completed measures. Participants were physicians (n = 8), nurses (n = 4), patient advocates (n = 3), research staff (n = 3), and others (n = 7); mostly female (n = 17), mostly white (n = 18), with a mean age of 55.5 (SD = 13.95). Results for the WIWI items are as follows: “Was it worthwhile to participate in the Hope Workshop?” (23 Yes, 2 No/Undecided/Missing Answer); “If you had to do over, would you participate in the Hope Workshop again?” (22 Yes, 3 No/Undecided/Missing Answer); “Would you recommend participating in the Hope Workshop to others?” (22 Yes, 3 No/Undecided/Missing Answer). Two additional items on the WIWI asked participants to rate on a 3-point scale the degree to which they believe their quality of life had increased due to the workshop (M = 2.52, SD =.51) and their overall experience in the workshop (M = 2.70, SD =.64). Ratings for Kirkpatrick’s TEM items likewise were high, ranging from 6.91 (SD = 1.31) to 7.70 (SD =.70) on an 8-point scale. Finally, participants gave a mean rating of 4.44 (SD =.59) on a 5-point scale to the item “To what degree do you believe it may be useful to integrate concepts from this workshop into SWOG trials/studies?” Conclusions: It is feasible to implement hope-enhancement workshops in an online platform that includes a smartphone app. Data obtained from two validated tools (WIWI instrument and Kirkpatrick’s TEM) attest to an array of positive outcomes. Participants also overwhelmingly advocated integrating hope concepts into SWOG’s research.