The COVID-19 pandemic has created additional challenges for people with cancer, both in terms of physical and mental health. Many people with cancer are considered at increased risk of serious complications if they were to contract the COVID-19 virus [1]. People with cancer have reported concerns about the further risks to their health from COVID-19, increased anxiety relating to potential cancellation or reduction in treatments and advice from oncology and other medical teams, and significant anxiety and fears of contracting COVID-19 as restrictions in lockdown arrangements are eased [2]. The pandemic has negatively impacted both the cancer health systems and the people using them. Overall, 1 in 5 (20%) people with cancer in the United Kingdom report that they will not feel safe enough to leave their home until an effective treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 becomes widely available [3].

People with cancer are already known to face challenges following primary treatment, including fatigue, pain, sexual problems, issues with cognitive functioning, depression, anxiety, social isolation, and financial issues [4-8]. A significant number of patients with cancer experience long-term negative impacts on their psychological well-being and mental health, including hypervigilance, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and depression [9-14]; indeed, 2 years postdiagnosis, up to 20% met criteria for major depression and up to 40% met criteria for an anxiety disorder [13,14]. Many of these difficulties are experienced long-term, after regular contact with health care professionals has ceased, which leads to many patients feeling vulnerable and unsupported [5,7,8]. A recent review published before the COVID-19 pandemic came to light highlights the need for urgent research into the longer-term effects of cancer treatment on mental health, as increasing numbers of people live with and beyond cancer [15]. During lockdown, one in four (28%) people with cancer have experienced depression, anxiety, and stress, and one in seven (14%) people with cancer experienced further decline in their physical health (eg, sleep problems, extreme tiredness, and pain) [3]. Macmillan Cancer Support (MCS) have called for the UK government to ensure that holistic physical and mental health support for people with cancer is not forgotten as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic [3].

In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) “Long Term Plan” of 2019 [16] places great emphasis on the need for holistic, person-centered care, with greater digital delivery for both NHS services overall and specifically those relating to living well with and beyond cancer. A holistic approach is timely, as recent research shows complex interrelationships between fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, anxiety, and depression in people with cancer [17,18]. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has also been a rapid and essential growth in the provision of health care digitally, to allow remote care [19,20]. A recent review and meta-analysis showed that digital psychoeducational interventions are effective in significantly reducing depression and fatigue in people with cancer [21]. Many people, including older adults, have become more motivated to use, accepting of, and familiar with digital technologies for health care and social connection [22]. This is essential to meet the needs of people with cancer, as traditional face-to-face support is cancelled and social isolation increases, particularly as in the United Kingdom and many other countries, people with cancer are being advised by the government to isolate or “shield” from others for prolonged periods [23,24].

Around 10 years ago, in response to the shortage of available, tailored self-management support for people with cancer, we codesigned a program together with people with cancer, clinicians, and other experts. The result was a group-based self-management program called the Help to Overcome Problems Effectively Program, known as the “Hope Programme,” for survivors of all types of cancer [25,26], which was originally delivered in-person. The Hope Programme recognizes the common challenges and unmet needs across all types of cancer including fatigue and psychological distress [4-14]. The Hope Programme differs from many other cancer self-management programs due to its roots in positive psychology [27-29] and its focus on hope and gratitude [30] to improve well-being and coping. It has been delivered in person to groups of survivors of all cancers and specifically for survivors of breast cancer, and participants have reported feeling more confident and hopeful and less alone [25,26]. The face-to-face version has been adapted for digital delivery, and initial pretest-posttest evaluation suggested potential effects on anxiety, depression, and positive well-being, with positive user evaluations [31]. A feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) study is the next step in the testing of this digital intervention and is required to assess whether participants consent to being randomized, and to test the feasibility of operating a wait-list control group. Owing to COVID-19, in-person service provision has largely been cancelled and this presents the opportunity to conduct the feasibility RCT of the digital intervention. This protocol has been prepared in accordance with SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines for clinical trials [32].

The aim of this study is to test the feasibility of a digitally delivered self-management program for people with cancer. This will inform the design of a definitive RCT. Additionally, preliminary assessment of the impact of the Hope Programme, via secondary outcomes, will be used to assess signals of efficacy in a trial context.

The planned primary outcomes (trail feasibility objectives) of the study are to investigate the following:

The secondary outcomes are the following:

This study will employ a feasibility, randomized wait-list control group design, to explore the feasibility of a trial of the digital Hope Programme for people with cancer. The intervention is a 6-week digital self-management program. Quantitative monitoring of participant progress through the online program will be undertaken. Participants will be asked to complete standardized measures of depression, anxiety, mental well-being, and confidence in managing their cancer.

This is a digital study and the recruitment, intervention, and data collection will be carried out entirely online. Participants are referred by MCS.

Inclusion criteria for the feasibility RCT are the following:

The Hope Programme will be delivered by Hope for the Community (H4C) Community Interest Company, which is a research social enterprise spinout company from Coventry University [33]. Full details of the digital Hope Programme content are described in Multimedia Appendix 1. All Hope Programme modules have the same structure and format, consisting of quizzes, videos, educational content, activities with homework suggestions, and a module review page. The digital Hope Programme is adapted from the in-person Hope Programme, which was developed in conjunction with cancer survivors and MCS staff. The Hope Programme content comprises text, images, downloadable documents, and links to external websites. The content delivered is configured into interactive activities (eg, quizzes, self-monitoring tools, diaries) that can be used by participants to learn and consolidate the program content. The Hope Programme uses forums and messaging facilities that act as a conduit for communication between participants and facilitators. The Hope Programme is asynchronous, and content is released at set times over the 6 weeks. The Hope Programme is moderated by trained peer facilitators.

We will administer a sociodemographic and health questionnaire at baseline only, requesting the following personal information from participants: gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, highest level of education, employment and occupation, and some details about their cancer diagnosis and any other medical conditions.

Participants will complete a set of validated questionnaires preprogram and postprogram, to give an indication of changes in depression, anxiety, mental well-being, and confidence to self-manage their cancer across the intervention and control groups. These questionnaires are detailed below.

The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) [35] is a 9-item measure that assesses the frequency of depression symptoms (eg, “over the past two weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems … i) little interest or pleasure in doing things; ii) feeling down, depressed or hopeless; iii) poor appetite or overeating”). Responses to each of the 9 items range from 0 to 3 (0=not at all, 1=several days, 2=more than half the days, 3=nearly every day), leading to a summed score between 0-27, with higher scores indicating greater severity of depression. Scores of ≥10 are presumed to be above the clinical range, and so scores of ≥10 are classed as “cases” of depression. Recovery rates are calculated as those patients who score ≥10 (cases) prior to treatment and <10 posttreatment.

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) [36] is a 7-item scale measuring symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder (eg, “Over the past two weeks, how often have you been bothered by the following problems … i) feeling nervous, anxious or on edge; ii) trouble relaxing; iii) becoming easily annoyed or irritable”). Responses to all 7 items range from 0 to 3 (0=not at all, 1=several days, 2=more than half the days, 3=nearly every day), providing a total score of 0-21, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. Scores of ≥8 are classed as “cases” of generalized anxiety disorder. Recovery rates are calculated as those patients who score ≥8 (cases) prior to treatment and <8 posttreatment.

The Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) [37] is a scale of 14 positively worded feelings and thoughts, used to assess mental well-being within the adult population. The scale includes measures of positive affect, satisfying interpersonal relationships, and positive functioning (eg, “Below are some statements about feelings and thoughts. Please tick the box that best describes your experience of each over the last two weeks … i) I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future; ii) I’ve been thinking clearly; iii) I’ve been feeling loved”). Participants rate each of the 14 items on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=none of the time, 2=rarely, 3=some of the time, 4=often, 5=all of the time), providing a total positive mental well-being score ranging from 14-70, with higher scores representing greater positive mental well-being. A change of ≥3 is seen as a clinically “meaningful” change [38].

The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) [39] is a validated, licensed tool that has been extensively tested with reviewed findings from a large number of studies. It helps to measure the spectrum of knowledge, skills, and confidence in patients and captures the extent to which people feel engaged and confident in taking care of their condition.

Individuals are asked to complete a short survey and based on their responses, they receive a PAM score (0-100). The resulting score places the individual at one of four levels of activation, each of which reveals insight into a range of health-related characteristics, including behaviors and outcomes. The 4 levels of activation are the following:

Level 1: Individuals tend to be passive and feel overwhelmed by managing their own health. They may not understand their role in the care process.

Level 2: Individuals may lack the knowledge and confidence to manage their health.

Level 3: Individuals appear to be taking action but may still lack the confidence and skill to support their behaviors.

Level 4: Individuals have adopted many of the behaviors needed to support their health but may not be able to maintain them in the face of life stressors.

Participants referred by MCS will be sent an email from H4C, with brief information about the Hope Programme and the feasibility study. The email will contain a link to a Qualtrics survey that contains digital versions of (1) the participant information sheet (PIS), (2) the consent form, and (3) study questionnaires. The PIS and consent form are included in Multimedia Appendix 2. Participants are explicitly informed that they will be randomly assigned to one of two Hope Programmes, starting either in May or in June. Informed consent will be obtained online in accordance with relevant UK legislation (ie, Data Protection Act 2018). The PIS and consent form must be read and agreed to (eg, by checking relevant boxes) before the participant can proceed to the study questionnaires.

After providing informed consent to take part in the study, all participants will be guided through the process of completing the baseline questionnaires (Time 0; hereafter, T0). Upon completion of T0 questionnaires, participants will be randomized via the Qualtrics randomization function, to either attend the Hope Programme starting in May 2020 (intervention group [IG]) or in June 2020 (wait-list control group [WLCG]). Participants are notified which group they have been randomized to at the end of the survey. There will be approximately 30 participants in each group. The IG will then be sent an email link that provides access to the Hope Programme. Those randomized to the WLCG will be informed that they will receive an email link shortly before the start of the Hope Programme in June (ie, approximately 6 weeks later). After 6 weeks (T1), all participants will be emailed a link to the Qualtrics survey containing the secondary outcome questionnaires, and IG participants will also receive a participant debrief at T1. The debrief contains information reminding the participant why the study is being conducted and what will happen to the results, thanking them for their time, and includes sources of additional support if they experienced any distress through completing the questionnaires, such as their own general practitioner or the Samaritans. The WLCG also receive the survey link via email again, with secondary outcome measures and debrief, after they have received the intervention (T2). Table 1 provides a list of all digital study documents presented to participants at each time point (T0, T1, T2). All information and questionnaires at T0, T1, and T2 will be delivered via the Qualtrics survey platform. The Hope Programme will be delivered via the H4C platform.

Participants for this feasibility RCT were drawn from an opportunity sample, referred by MCS, of people with cancer who had expressed an interest in joining the Hope Programme (N=61). As a feasibility study, it was not necessary to conduct sample size calculations to power the study [40]. An arbitrary sample size of n=40 was deemed appropriate for this feasibility study, informed by similar studies in this area [41].

We contacted all 61 people with cancer from an opportunity sample of people who expressed interest in attending the in-person MCS Hope Programme and invited them to participate in a trial of the digital program. MCS originally recruited these participants through their social media networks (eg, Macmillan Facebook page and website) and Macmillan Information Centres. Given the urgent need to provide immediate support during the COVID-19 crisis, we did not want to delay the study by seeking National Health Service (NHS) ethics approval to recruit NHS patients. Instead, with University ethics approval in place, we only recruited participants who were recruited via non-NHS sources such as the MCS website and their social media networks. Participant recruitment flow is depicted in Figure 1.

This feasibility trial is designed to provide evidence about whether it is possible to conduct a definitive trial of a digital self-management program for people with cancer. Digital health care has become more important than ever in the wake of COVID-19, and provision of an acceptable and effective digital self-management program for people with cancer is both timely and necessary [2,19,20].

Digital delivery of the Hope Programme has rapidly become essential in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting social distancing measures required for those who are clinically vulnerable or required to quarantine. Owing to recent research revealing the number of people with cancer who have experienced declining mental health and increasing fear during the pandemic [3], the Hope Programme is well placed to deliver timely and much-needed support for people with cancer, particularly while treatments and contact with health care teams are reduced [2].

It is noteworthy that there is not always a linear relationship between time spent in a digital intervention, the number of sessions completed, and participant outcomes [44]. For example, it is possible that the participants who access only a couple of sessions may be “e-attainers” (as described in [45]). These participants may achieve what they need from the program, such as practicing gratitude, or gaining reassurance that their challenges are shared by others [46]. In our comprehensive statistical analyses, we plan to use a combination of data from our usability measures and the user engagement data extracted from the platform to develop a more thorough understanding of engagement and attrition, which can then be used to inform the content and design of future versions of the Hope Programme.

A challenge for many digital interventions is completion of postprogram questionnaires. Achieving an acceptable postprogram questionnaire completion rate is a key criterion for progression to a definitive trial. In this feasibility trial, we have included entry to a prize draw for those that complete the postprogram questionnaires. This will enable us to determine whether this is sufficient to secure an acceptable postprogram completion rate in this population. Exploring the feasibility of achieving acceptable completion rates for questionnaires is particularly pertinent with a wait-list control group design. There is some evidence that wait-list controls for studies of psychological interventions may overestimate intervention effects relative to other forms of control group [47]. Wait-list control participants are hypothesized to delay taking action while they are waiting relative to no active treatment control participants [48]. Testing the feasibility of this approach will enable us to establish whether this is an acceptable trial design and an ethical approach to RCTs for people with cancer in these unprecedented times.