Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial Allison J. J. Applebaum, Leah E. Walsh, Talia Zaider, Raymond E. Baser, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7963562/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 21 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Trials → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Caregivers of patients with advanced cancer shoulder immense responsibilities as they care for patients, including symptom and medication management, providing emotional support, and navigating healthcare treatment and decision-making. Due to the heavy toll of these responsibilities, caregivers are at high risk for profound mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A key driver of this heightened risk for psychopathology in caregivers is existential distress, manifesting as a loss of meaning and purpose, decreased spiritual well-being, and hopelessness. Historically, psychosocial interventions targeting distress in cancer caregivers have neglected to address existential distress. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers, a 7-session structured intervention, was developed to address this gap. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, the approach led to enhancements in personal meaning, benefit finding, and spiritual well-being. Here, we present a large, multi-site trial that aims to definitively examine the efficacy of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers in an adequately powered study. Method This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers versus Supportive Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers on primary (personal meaning and spiritual well-being) and secondary (anxiety, depression, sense of meaning in caregiving, benefit finding, caregiver burden, social support) outcomes at baseline, post-treatment, and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. It will also evaluate the role of sense of meaning in life as a mediator of secondary outcomes, as well as the impact of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers on pre-and post-loss bereavement outcomes. Two hundred caregivers of patients with advanced (stage III/IV) solid tumor cancers from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the community will be enrolled. Discussion Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers has the potential to help alleviate existential suffering in caregivers as they manage the multifaceted demands of caring for patients with advanced cancer. This trial seeks to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention in a more robust and representative trial of cancer caregivers, and extends prior research to explore mediators of improvement and the impact of the intervention on pre- and post-loss bereavement outcomes. Trial registration : This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06307535, registered on 03/05/2024 Cancer caregiver caregiver support Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers meaning purpose spiritual wellbeing existential distress advanced cancer advance care planning bereavement Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Administrative information Note: the numbers in curly brackets in this protocol refer to SPIRIT checklist item numbers. The order of the items has been modified to group similar items (see http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/). Title {1} Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C): Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial Trial registration {2a and 2b}. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06307535, registered on 03/05/2024 https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06307535 Protocol version {3} Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, July 22, 2025 Funding {4} This study is supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA285621). Author details {5a} Allison J. Applebaum, PhD 1 Leah E. Walsh, PhD 1 Talia Zaider, PhD 2 Raymond E. Baser 3 Morgan Loschiavo 2 William S. Breitbart 2 Wendy G. Lichtenthal 4 1 Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai 2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 3 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 4 Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System Name and contact information for the trial sponsor {5b} This study is funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01CA28561). Role of sponsor {5c} This study is funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01CA285621). Introduction Background and rationale {6a} Over 63 million individuals in the United States are caregivers, with a significant portion providing care to patients with life-limiting cancers. 1 Caregivers of patients with cancer take on tremendous responsibilities across the illness trajectory, assisting with symptom management, 2 providing emotional support 3 , 4 and navigating the healthcare team and treatment, 5 all while managing other personal, family, occupational, and financial responsibilities. The burden of cancer caregiving can lead to increased levels of anxiety, depression, 6 and posttraumatic stress. 7 Without timely intervention, such distress has the potential to negatively impact the care provided to patients 8 – 10 and can contribute to poor adjustment and psychosocial outcomes in bereavement, 11,12 such as prolonged grief disorder. 13 A key driver of these mental health outcomes is existential distress, characterized as a loss of meaning and purpose in life, decreased spiritual well-being, and hopelessness. 14 , 15 Existential distress is common among caregivers due to the competing demands of caregiving and personal life goals, and balancing hope for the present with an awareness of potential patient death in the future. Witnessing prolonged or aggressive medical treatment, patient suffering, or a decline in patient functioning can also contribute to existential distress. 16 – 18 Importantly, caregivers who experience existential distress are less likely to engage in advance care planning discussions with patients and healthcare professionals, which ultimately negatively impacts the care patients receive at the end of life. 19 As such, addressing existential distress in cancer caregivers has profound benefits for caregivers, as well as the patients for whom they provide care. When existential distress is mitigated, caregivers are better able to cultivate deeper connections with patients and strengthen their sense of meaning in caregiving. This in turn can reduce regret and unfinished business and prevent poor bereavement outcomes. 20 – 22 Despite these facts, existential distress has historically remained unaddressed in psychosocial interventions for cancer caregivers. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy (MCP) 23 , 24 is an empirically supported intervention originally developed to help patients with advanced, life-limiting cancers connect to meaning and purpose, despite the challenges they face. Our team adapted MCP to assist cancer caregivers to connect to meaning and purpose and mitigate existential distress (Meaning Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers; MCP-C). 25,26 Developed with feedback from caregiver stakeholders, MCP-C is an existentially-oriented 7-session manualized intervention that helps caregivers connect – or reconnect – to sources of meaning and purpose in their life despite the challenges, limitations, and losses that come with caregiving. Our pilot trial of MCP-C among 60 caregivers of patients with glioblastoma evidenced strong preliminary effects on enhanced personal meaning, benefit finding, and spiritual well-being. The results of this pilot study, alongside qualitative feedback from participants that supported its feasibility and acceptability, 27 suggested that MCP-C should be tested in a larger, fully powered randomized controlled trial. Objectives {7} This randomized controlled trial has three objectives. First, this study will investigate the efficacy of MCP-C versus Supportive Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (SP-C) on primary (i.e., sense of meaning in life, spiritual well-being) and secondary (i.e., anxiety, depression, sense of meaning in caregiving, benefit finding, caregiver burden, social support) outcomes immediately post treatment and explore maintenance in improvements up to 1-year post treatment (Aim 1). Second, this study will evaluate the role of sense of meaning in life as a mediator of improvements in key secondary outcomes (Aim 2). Third, this study will explore the effects of MCP-C on pre- and post-loss grief and bereavement outcomes (Aim 3). Trial design {8} This is a randomized controlled trial in which participating caregivers (N = 200) are randomized 1:1 to either MCP-C or SP-C to test the efficacy of MCP-C versus SP-C. Methods: Participants, interventions and outcomes Study setting {9} The coordinating site for this trial is the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS). Participants are being recruited from two primary sites: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (SCCC), part of the University of Miami Health System. Caregivers will also be recruited through the community via the National Alliance for Caregiving and the American Cancer Society, who will share information about this trial with their listservs and on their social media platforms. Information about study participation will be included on all advertisements and posts and caregivers will be directed to contact ISMMS to learn more about study participation. Eligibility criteria {10} Participants are eligible if they are: at least 18 years of age, can read and understand English, a self-reported current caregiver to a patient with Stage III or IV solid tumor cancer currently receiving any type of medical treatment (e.g., curative, palliative), reporting caregiving-related distress as evidenced by scoring a 4 or greater on an adapted Distress Thermometer (DT) for caregivers, and residing in New York, New Jersey, Florida, or Connecticut, or have the ability to complete sessions in compliance with current telehealth regulations. Participants are not eligible if they do not have a reasonable understanding of study procedures as judged by the consenting professional or if they are engaged in regular individual psychotherapeutic support that they are unable or unwilling to pause while receiving the study intervention. Who will take informed consent? {26a} Study team members trained in informed consent procedures will screen eligible participants, explain study procedures, and enroll caregivers who meet study inclusion criteria and provide informed consent. Additional consent provisions for collection and use of participant data and biological specimens {26b} N/A Interventions Explanation for the choice of comparators {6b} We are comparing MCP-C, the study intervention, to SP-C. SP-C is based on a model of Supportive Psychotherapy that has been used in previous randomized trials of MCP as the comparator intervention and was adapted to represent the standard of caregiver support in the community. It has also been standardized for use in RCTs. 28 Intervention description {11a} Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C). MCP-C is a 7-session intervention delivered individually over telehealth platforms that combines didactics, discussion, and experiential exercises focused on themes related to meaning and caregiving. Session 1 ( Concepts and Sources of Meaning ) provides an overview of meaning and caregiving and asks participants to share their caregiving journey and their understanding of the word “caregiver.” Session 2 ( Identity Before and After Becoming a Caregiver ) focuses on how caregiving impacts participants’ identities, highlighting both immutable aspects as well as the possibility for growth. Session 3 ( Historical Sources of Meaning ) focuses on the meaning derived through reflecting on one’s past legacy (i.e., family history and past life experiences that one does not choose), the present legacy caregivers are actively creating, and the future legacy they will give to others. Session 4 ( Attitudinal Sources of Meaning ) focuses on helping caregivers to recognize where they have choice and how meaning can be derived through reflecting on how they choose to respond to life’s limitations and challenges, including how they choose to face the potential eventual death of their care partner. Session 5 ( Creative Sources of Meaning ) focuses on meaning generated through creating one’s life (i.e., the activities they do or pursuits or interests that make them who they are), and highlights self-care as a key route through which caregivers can continue to create their lives, despite the challenges of caregiving. Session 6 ( Experiential Sources of Meaning ) focuses on meaning derived through experiencing life through the five senses and through the experiences of love, beauty, and humor. Session 7 ( Transitions ) reviews the material covered and provides space to reflect on the ways participants can continue to use these sources of meaning as resources moving forward. At the end each session, caregivers are encouraged to reflect on questions specific to the subsequent session’s theme for homework to help guide discussion and reflection. Supportive Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (SP-C). SP-C is a 7-session intervention delivered individually over telehealth platforms based on conceptual models developed by Rogers 29 and Block. 30 SP-C incorporates client-centered, supportive strategies and offers caregivers a safe space to share challenges they face in their daily routines and experiences. For each session, the topic of discussion is determined by the caregiver and centers on their most pressing caregiving-related need at that time. Unlike in MCP-C, the therapist does not impose a structure or agenda onto the session. The role of the therapist is to provide supportive reflections, to acknowledge and validate their emotions and reactions in response to the caregiving role, to encourage caregivers’ self-reflection, and to highlight adaptive coping responses to challenges, including support-seeking and self-care strategies. Therapists utilize curiosity, acceptance, and openness to facilitate the therapeutic alliance to assist caregivers to explore and validate their experiences. SP-C has been utilized and standardized in past RCTs of MCP and tailored for cancer caregivers. Criteria for discontinuing or modifying allocated interventions {11b} Discontinuing the allocated intervention will only occur if the participant chooses to end their participation in the study or are no longer able to comply with telehealth regulations. Participants will not be able to modify their allocated intervention arm once randomized. There are no significant concerns of harm from either study arm that would require a change in study arm allocation. If participants become bereaved, they are welcome – and encouraged – to remain on the study, and bereavement-related adaptations are made to subsequent sessions. Strategies to improve adherence to interventions {11c} We encourage participants to complete study sessions weekly and will be flexible with their schedule if they need to reschedule a session for a later date. We expect that the 7 study sessions will be completed within 14-weeks. This schedule flexibility will help to improve adherence to the intervention. All intervention sessions are audio/video recorded and a random sample of 30% of cases (100% of sessions for these participants) will be evaluated and rated for treatment integrity by independent raters throughout the study. We have developed comprehensive treatment manuals for MCP-C and SP-C to facilitate standardized delivery, and all interventionists undergo a half day training in either MCP-C or SP-C, followed by weekly group supervision sessions. Supervisors also review recorded sessions to facilitate reinforcement of model-specific strategies and alert therapists of any drift in model adherence. To reduce likelihood of treatment contamination, each condition is delivered by distinct treatment providers. Further, therapists monitor attendance and homework completion when relevant as part of session notes. Deviations from the protocol are recorded and discussed regularly during weekly group supervision. Relevant concomitant care permitted or prohibited during the trial {11d} Caregivers will be ineligible for participation if they are engaged in regular individual psychotherapeutic support that they are unable or unwilling to put on hold for the course of the intervention. The use of psychotropic medications while engaging in the trial is permitted. Provisions for post-trial care {30} There are no provisions for post-trial care. However, should a participant specifically request referrals for ongoing support after completion of the trial, the study team will provide appropriate resources. Outcomes {12} The primary outcome measures are sense of meaning in life and spiritual well-being. Secondary outcome measures include anxiety and depression, sense of meaning and purpose in caregiving, benefit finding, caregiver burden, and social support. Pre-loss (preparedness for patient death, pre-loss grief intensity, risk for bereavement mental health challenges, engagement in advance care planning) and post-loss (presence of regret, unfinished business, post-loss grief intensity, risk for post-loss bereavement mental health challenges, and occurrence of advance care planning discussions and goal-concordant care at patients’ end of life) bereavement outcomes will also be explored. The SPIRIT figure for the trial is shown in Fig. 2. Participant timeline {13} Potential participants will be screened for eligibility (approximately 5 minutes) and will meet criteria if they report distress > 4 on the Distress Thermometer and indication that the distress is related to caregiving. If interested, participants will complete informed consent procedures and will be offered to immediately complete baseline (T1) assessments. Participants will have up to 45 days (consent expiration) to complete baseline assessments. Once baseline assessments are complete, they will be randomized to either MCP-C or SP-C and assigned to a therapist for 7 individual sessions that will be completed over Webex. Participants will have up to 14 weeks to complete all 7 sessions. After intervention completion, participants will complete follow-up assessments immediately post-treatment (T2, + 2 weeks), 6-month follow-up (T3, +/- 4 weeks) and 12-month follow-up (T4, +/- 8 weeks). See Fig. 1 for the full study timeline. Sample size {14} Participants will be 200 caregivers recruited across study sites and the community, with 100 caregivers randomized to each study arm (MCP-C vs. SP-C). The sample size was chosen to provide 80% power to detect reasonable treatment effect sizes for our two primary endpoints while maintaining the Type 1 error rate at α = 0.05 for these two comparisons. Using methods relevant to clinical trials with repeated measures, 31 we calculated the smallest effect size that we will be able to detect for the immediate post-treatment coefficient of the time-by-arm interaction term in our linear mixed model analysis of one of the two primary outcome measures (LAP-R PMI). Given the sample size ( N = 200), we will be able to detect a standardized mean difference treatment effect size between the two study arms of 0.48 standard deviations. This calculation assumed a correlation between baseline and follow-up measures of 0.5, 20% attrition by the post-treatment assessment, a two-sided significance test, and a type I error of .025 (0.05 overall for both primary endpoints). Recruitment {15} To maximize recruitment and retention, this study employs a multi-site design where participants will be recruited from outpatient clinics in various departments at MSK and SCCC. At both sites, we will employ three recruitment strategies. Flyers will be posted (digitally or using paper with the clinic’s permission) in clinics at MSK and SCCC. Study contact information will be provided on each flyer where caregivers can reach out to learn more about the study. Participants will also be recruited through patient appointments. Physicians will either directly provide caregivers with the contact information of the study team, or the study team will approach caregivers during or after patients’ next clinic appointment and introduce the study. Third, if clinicians who are aware of the study receive an inquiry from a caregiver about supportive services, they will provide their information to the study team who will subsequently send a study invitation letter to the caregiver via email. The study team will then make 3–5 follow-up calls/emails to discuss interest and participation with the caregiver. Recruitment from community partners will occur through listservs and social media channels (e.g., Twitter/X, Facebook) of both the American Cancer Society and the National Alliance for Caregiving in states where MCP-C and SP-C supervisors are licensed (New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Connecticut). These advertisements will include study team information and will direct potential participants to contact the study team by email. Caregivers from New York and New Jersey will be enrolled at MSK, and those from Florida and Connecticut will be enrolled at SCCC. During the initial approach and informed consent conversation, study team members will ensure that participants reside in a state where the MCP-C and SP-C supervisors are licensed and may be asked to provide certain health information that is necessary for the recruitment and enrollment process. Assignment of interventions: allocation Sequence generation {16a} Participants will be randomized to either MCP-C or SP-C using MSK’s Clinical Research Database, a secure computer system that ensure allocation concealment. Randomization will be 1:1 (MCP-C:SP-C) stratified by study site (MSK, SCCC, Community/MSK, and Community/SCCC) using randomly permuted blocks of random length. Given the clear focus of MCP-C versus SP-C on unique meaning-focused themes, participants and their study interventionists will not be blinded to intervention assignment. The study biostatistician will also not be blinded to treatment assignment. Concealment mechanism {16b} N/A. Implementation {16c} Participants will be randomized 1:1, stratified by study site, to MCP-C or SP-C using MSK’s Clinical Research Database, a secure computer system that ensures allocation concealment that uses randomly permuted blocks of random length to allocate participants to study arm. Participants will be enrolled by a consenting professional at the corresponding study site. Assignment of interventions: Blinding Who will be blinded {17a} Neither participants nor their study interventionists will be blinded to intervention assignment due to the clear focus of the MCP-C intervention on meaning and existential content and SP-C on the provision of support. Procedure for unblinding if needed {17b} N/A. Data collection and management Plans for assessment and collection of outcomes {18a} Data will be collected via self-report measures using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web application for creating and managing online survey databases. The Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) will send all study assessments to participants at the appropriate timepoint. Outcomes will be measured at four timepoints: baseline, directly after informed consent or until consent expiration (i.e., 45 days; T1), immediately post-intervention + 2 weeks (T2), 6-month follow-up +/- 4 weeks (T3), and 12-month follow-up +/- 8 weeks (T4). This will allow flexibility for study assessment completion and aid caregiver retention throughout the entire study. All data collection forms can be found in the study protocol. At baseline, (T1), participants will complete demographic information (e.g., age, sex, race, ethnicity, income), caregiving characteristics (e.g., relationship to the patient, length of caregiving), and a survey about psychosocial service use, preferences, and perceived barriers, using established questionnaires from our group’s previous studies. Participants will also complete all outcome measures (i.e., sense of meaning in life, spiritual well-being, anxiety and depression, benefit finding, meaning in caregiving, caregiver burden, and social support) at T1. At T2, in addition to study outcome measures, participants will complete the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) to assess treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness. Pre-loss (preparedness for patient death, pre-loss grief intensity, risk for bereavement mental health challenges, engagement in advance care planning) and post-loss (presence of regret, unfinished business, post-loss grief intensity, risk for post-loss bereavement mental health challenges, and occurrence of advance care planning discussions and goal-concordant care at patients’ end of life) bereavement outcomes will also be explored at all time points. Description of study measures Screening and non-outcome measures Caregiving-related distress. A modified version of the Distress Thermometer 32 will be used to screen for distress related to caregiving. Participants are asked to rate their distress on a scale of 0–10 (cutoff score > 4) and indicate that their distress is related to caregiving to be eligible for the study. The Distress Thermometer will be administered at screening only. Treatment Acceptability and Perceived Effectiveness . The CEQ is a 6-item measure of treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness. 33,34 This measure has been used extensively in prior research and has strong psychometric properties. 34 The CEQ is administered at T2 only. Primary outcomes Sense of Meaning in Life . The LAP-R PMI 35 is a 48-item measure of meaning in life, with items rated on a 7-point Likert scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree , with higher scores indicating a stronger presence of that type of meaning. The LAP-R generates two composite scores: the Personal Meaning Index (PMI) and Existential Transcendence (ET). The LAP-R has demonstrated strong internal consistency in previous research (Cronbach’s α range: .77-.91). 35 The LAP-R PMI is administered at T1-T4. Spiritual Wellbeing . The FACIT Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) 36 is a 12-item measure of spiritual well-being measured on a 0 (Not at all) to 4 (very much) scale, with higher scores indicating higher spiritual wellbeing. This measure has demonstrated strong internal consistency across all subscales in cancer caregivers (Cronbach’s α range: .88-.93). 26 The SWBS is administered at T1-T4. Secondary outcomes Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms . The HADS is a 14-item measure of anxiety and depressive symptoms with items rated on a 0 to 3 scale, with higher scores indicating greater symptomatology. A total score and anxiety and depression subscale scores are generated. The total HADS and its subscales has demonstrated strong internal consistency in cancer caregiver populations (Cronbach’s α range: .82-.92). 26,37 The HADS is administered at T1-T4. Sense of Meaning and Purpose in Caregiving . The Attitudes Toward Caregiving Scale (ATCS) 38 is a 43-item measure rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale that examines the extent to which caregivers find meaning in caregiving. Scores can be summed for a total score in addition to three subscales: loss/powerlessness, provisional meaning, and ultimate meaning, with higher scores indicating higher overall meaning and purpose. The ATCS is administered at T1-T4, in non-bereaved caregivers. Benefit Finding . The BFS is a 17-item measure of perceived benefit finding that has been modified for careger populations. It has been used in our group’s previous research and has demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α range: .91 to .95. 39,40 The BFS is administered at T1-T4. Caregiver Burden . The CRA is a 24-item measure with items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale. 41 Items are summed for a total score (range: 24–120) across five subscales: self-esteem, family support, impact on finances, schedule, and health. The CRA is a widely used measure of caregiver burden that has demonstrated good internal consistency and construct validity. 42 The CRA is administered at T1-T4 in non-bereaved caregivers. Social Support . The FSSQ is an 8-item measure of perceived social support. Items are summed to a total score ranging from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater perceived social support. The FSSQ has demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .94). 43 The FSSQ will be administered at T1-T4. Bereavement related outcomes Pre-Loss Outcomes: Preparedness for Patient Death . The Preparedness for Patient Death item asks participants “If your care partner were to die soon, how prepared would you be for his/her death?” Response options are “not at all,” “somewhat,” and “very.” This item is based on previous studies of preparedness for loss. 44–46 Preparedness for patient death is measured at T1-T4 in non-bereaved caregivers. Pre-loss grief intensity . The Prolonged Grief-12-Revised (PG-12-R) is a 12-item measure of pre-loss grief, adapted from a measure of prolonged grief symptoms 44 that is worded to reflect the patient as living. PG-12-R items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with total scores ranging from 11–55, with higher scores suggesting greater anticipatory grief. The PG-12-R has demonstrated strong internal consistency, 47 and is administered at T1-T4 to non-bereaved caregivers. Risk for Bereavement-Related Mental Health Challenges . The Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire-Pre-Loss (BRISQ-P) is a 30-item screener for bereavement mental health challenges, with items rated on a 5-point Likert scale. 48 The BRISQ-P assesses illness or death-related and bereavement-related risk factors and is administered at T1-T4 to non-bereaved caregivers. Advance Care Planning Engagement. Engagement in advance care planning will be measured by the Advance Care Planning (ACP) Checklist–Current Caregiver 49 which includes 14 items that ask caregivers about previous ACP discussions and domains of ACP (e.g., prognosis, goals of care, execution of advance directives). Items are scored and summed to a total score. This checklist is administered at T1-T4 to non-bereaved caregivers. Post-Loss Outcomes: Post-loss grief intensity . The Prolonged Grief-13-Revised (PG-13-R) is a 13-item measure that evaluates symptoms of prolonged grief disorder. 50 It assesses 10 grief-related symptoms on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores range from 10–50 with higher scores indicating greater grief intensity. The PG-13-R is administered at T2-T4 to caregivers who become bereaved during the study. Risk for bereavement-related mental health challenges post-death . The Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire-Post-Loss (BRISQ-B) is a measure of risk for bereavement mental health challenges following the patient’s death. 48 It is nearly identical to the BRISQ-P but items are modified to refer to the patient’s death rather than their illness. It also includes items related to the bereavement experience. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The BRISQ-B is administered at T2-T4 to caregivers who become bereaved during the study period. Presence of Regret. The single Presence of Regret item 22 asks caregivers, “Do you regret any of your actions or choices that occurred while providing care to your loved one with cancer when they were ill?” with a dichotomous yes/no response option. For those who report yes, they will be asked to provide an example of their most troubling regret and to rate their distress about the stated regret on a 10-point scale (10 = most distressed). The Presence of Regret item will be administered at T2-T4 for those caregivers who become bereaved during the study period. Unfinished business . The single Unfinished Business item asks caregivers, “Do you feel that anything was unfinished, unsaid, or unresolved in your relationship with your loved one with cancer?” with a yes/no response option. If yes, caregivers are asked to provide an example of their most troubling source of unfinished business and to rate their distress about this on a 10-point scale (10 = most distressed). This item was developed to be face valid and consistent with theory on regret and unfinished business, 20,20,51 and has demonstrated good concurrent validity. 21 Advance Care Planning Engagement. Caregivers who become bereaved will complete the Advance Care Planning Checklist–Past Caregiver, which mirrors the Advance Care Planning Checklist-Current Caregiver, but asks about what type of care the patient received at end of life, where the patient died, and if the location of death and care provided were consistent with the patient’s stated wishes. Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up {18b} Participants will be compensated $10 for each intervention session they complete. They will also be compensated $5 for completing baseline assessments (T1), $10 for completing post-intervention assessments (T2), $15 for completing 6-month follow-up assessments (T3), and $20 for completing 12-month follow-up assessments (T4). Participants are sent a maximum of three emails and called a maximum of three times to remind them to complete each survey. Those participants who discontinue their involvement in the study intervention will be asked to continue to complete study assessments and will receive reimbursement for completed assessments. Data management {19} A Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) is assigned to this study whose responsibilities include project management and compliance, data collection, data entry, data reporting, regulatory monitoring, identifying and resolving problems, and coordinating activities related to the study protocol. The maintained dataset will include minimal data (race, ethnicity, sex, and age) and will be entered into the Clinical Research Administration Clinical Trials Management System. Data collected for this study will be entered into and managed via the secure Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) Database. REDCap is an open-source platform that allows for data collection in a secure manner over a web-based interface. The REDCap platform was developed by Vanderbilt University with whom ISMMS has a standing agreement to allow the usage of REDCap for academic/research purposes. To ensure data quality, reports will be generated periodically to monitor accrual and completeness of participant registration data. Data quality reports will also be generated to assess for missing data and inconsistencies. Throughout the study, data on accrual rates and follow-up will be monitored to identify any potential problems which will be brought to the attention of the study team during weekly team meetings. An audit of consent and eligibility data will be performed with the first five enrolled participants to assess for data completeness and data accuracy. Confidentiality {27} Research staff involved in participant recruitment will provide an overview of the study, invite potential participants to participate, and discuss potential risks and benefits during the informed consent process. All participants are required to provide informed consent prior to completing study assessments and the intervention. Participants can choose to skip any question in the assessment battery they do not wish to answer. Participants who report experiencing psychological distress related to completing study questions will be offered support from the enrolling institutions’ counseling or supportive care services or receive community referrals for mental health providers. When presenting study results, data will be presented for the entire sample and will not reference any individual participant’s data. All survey data will be de-identified using a code number to ensure confidentiality of participant data. For research staff who need to access study data, password security measures and other relevant restrictions will be applied to maintain confidentiality. Confidential data will only be accessible on a “need to know” basis for any particular research staff member. All personnel involved with the study will receive training in HIPAA and human subjects’ protections, and will receive information on the ethics of accessing electronic data. Plans for collection, laboratory evaluation and storage of biological specimens for genetic or molecular analysis in this trial/future use {33} No biospecimen data will be collected as part of study aims and procedures. Statistical methods Statistical methods for primary and secondary outcomes {20a} Descriptive statistics will be calculated for baseline demographic and caregiver clinical variables, summarizing each outcome by treatment arm. We will assess the distribution of each study outcome and, if necessary, perform corrective transformations before calculating inferential statistics. We will also perform all efficacy analyses by the intention-to-treat principle, meaning that all randomized participations will be analyzed regardless of drop-out or treatment adherence in their respective study arm. All endpoint comparisons between study arms will be adjusted for the randomization stratification variable (study site). Aim 1 Analytic Plan: The primary and secondary outcome measures for Aim 1 are all continuous variables assessed repeatedly over the four timepoints: baseline (T1), immediately post-treatment (T2), 6-month follow-up (T3) and 12-month follow-up (T4). The co-primary efficacy endpoints for Aim 1 are the LAP-R PMI and FACIT SWBS at the immediately post-treatment assessment (T2). We will consider MCP-C efficacious if MCP-C participants have significantly greater improvements than SP-C participants in LAP-R PMI or FACIT SWBS scores at T2 at the p < .025 statistical significance threshold in the analysis described below. We will analyze each continuous primary and secondary outcome measure by using constrained linear mixed model (cLMM) regression. 52–54 This statistical method accounts for within-subject correlations due to repeated measurement of participants and, under the reasonable missing at random (MAR) assumption, allows unbiased estimation of between-group differences without excluding participants with missing follow-up data. Each of these outcome measures will be analyzed using a separate cLMM regression with random intercept that will model the baseline and repeated follow-up scores (dependent variable) as a function of time (categorical) and the time-by arm interaction, controlling for the randomization stratification variable (study site). The cLMM method will also constrain the two study arms to have a common baseline mean on the outcome measure to reflect the pre-randomization nature of the baseline assessment (T1). 52 All randomized participants will have, at a minimum, the baseline (T1) primary outcome assessments and will be included in the cLMM per the intention-to-treat principal. In the cLMM parameterization, the coefficients for the time-by-arm interaction are equivalent to the differences between arms in outcome measure score changes from baseline to the post-baseline time points, and they will be calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For each co-primary endpoint (LAP-R PMI and FACIT SWBS), we will conclude that MCP-C participants had significantly larger improvements in the endpoint at T2 compared to SP-C if the time-by-arm interaction coefficient for T2 is significantly larger than 0 at the p < .025 level. The secondary outcome measures will be compared between study arms using similar cLMM analyses. However, we will assess estimated treatment effects at each timepoint using 95% CIs instead of p-values. Aim 2 Analytic Plan: We will use model-based causal mediation analysis (CMA) 55 to evaluate whether changes in sense of meaning in life (LAP-R PMI) immediately post-treatment (T2) mediate the effect of treatment arm on benefit finding (BFS), anxiety (HADS-A), and depression (HADS-D) at 6-month follow-up. We will use the mediation 56 package in R 57 to conduct mediation analyses for each of the three outcomes (BFS, HADS-A, HADS-D). Each mediation analysis will estimate the average causal mediation effect (ACME, the effect of the treatment arm on the outcome via the mediator), average direct effect (ADE, effect of treatment arm on the outcome measure excluding the mediation), the average total effect (ATE, sum of the ACME and ATE), and the proportion of the ATE mediated by the mediator variable (ACME/ATE). To estimate these effects, we will input two models, (1) a mediator model and (2) an outcome model, to the estimation functions in the mediation R package. The (1) mediator model will be a linear regression with T2 LAP-R PMI as the dependent variable, and treatment arm and baseline (T1) LAP-R PMI as independent variables, controlling for baseline outcome measure (e.g., T1 BFS) and study site (randomization stratification variable). The (2) outcome model will be a linear regression with the T3 outcome measure (e.g., BFS) as the dependent variable, and treatment arm, baseline outcome measure, T2 and T1 LAP-R PMI, and study site (randomization stratification variable) as independent variables. We will conduct these mediation analyses once excluding those participants with missing data for any variables in the model, and we will conduct sensitivity analyses replicating the model after applying multiple imputation of missing data using chained equation analyses. 58 Other sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate results testing the impact of unmeasured pre-treatment confounding variables. 59 Aim 3 Analytic Plan: Based on our group’s prior research, we estimate approximately 50 (25%) participants in this study will be become bereaved by the 12-month follow-up assessment (T4). Among the subset of non-bereaved caregivers, we will utilize the same cLMM analysis used in assessing the secondary outcomes in Aim 1 to examine differences between study arms in risk for bereavement mental health challenges (BRISQ-P) and pre-loss grief (PG-12-R). Multinomial logistic regression analyses will assess between-arm differences in T4 preparedness for loss in this subset, controlling for study site and baseline preparedness for loss. Among the subset of caregivers who become bereaved by T4, we will assess between-arm differences in T4 risk for bereavement mental health challenges (BRISQ-B), post-loss grief (PG-13-R), and presence of regret (single item, yes/no) using linear (BRISQ-B, PG-13-R) and logistic (presence of regret) regression models controlling for study site and time since bereavement. Also, among those bereaved before T4, we will test whether higher post-treatment (T2) preparedness for patient death and/or engagement in ACP discussions (ACP Execution Checklist score) are associated with lower levels of T4 post-loss grief (PG-13-R) by fitting linear regression models predicting T4 PG-13-R scores. These models will control for study site, time since bereavement, and treatment arm, and they will include either T2 preparedness for patient death or the ACP Execution Checklist score as the focal predictor. Interim analyses {21b} Not applicable. Methods for additional analyses (e.g. subgroup analyses) {20b} All detailed analyses comparing study arms (MCP-C versus SP-C) will be adjusted for randomization stratification variable (study site). Methods in analysis to handle protocol non-adherence and any statistical methods to handle missing data {20c} Efforts to minimize missing data include ensuring an efficient and organized trial design, robust training of research staff, and reducing participant burden by utilizing remote study assessments rather than in-person visits. For participants who report time constraints or difficulty completing study assessments, we will ask them to only complete primary outcome measures (LAP-R and FACIT SWBS) in order to minimize missing data regarding primary study aims. Missing data will be treated using sensitivity analyses and other data analytic approaches that are responsive to missingness. Specifically, we will first exam whether data missingness is associated with variables such as randomization arm and baseline outcome measures by comparing caregivers with complete data to those with missing data. If data is not missing at random, then we will modify analyses by controlling for factors associated with data missingness. 60,61 Plans to give access to the full protocol, participant level-data and statistical code {31c} Reasonable requests for the study protocol or de-identified data can be made to the Principal Investigator. Oversight and monitoring Composition of the coordinating centre and trial steering committee {5d} The study team at the coordinating center, ISMMS, is comprised of the CRC and study Principal Investigator. Co-Investigators are housed at MSK and SCCC. The study team at the coordinating site meets weekly to discuss recruitment, active participant, and study questionnaire completion updates. There is no trial steering committee for the current study. Composition of the data monitoring committee, its role and reporting structure {21a} ISMMS/Tisch Cancer Institute (TCI) is serving as the IRB of record, and as such, the data and safety monitoring plan is standard to clinical trials completed at TCI. The TCI Data and Safety Monitoring (DSM) Plan ensures that all clinical trials are high quality, routinely monitored, and meet sponsor, institutional, and governmental requirements. The Plan includes all required elements of the DSM as defined by the NIH and the NCI: monitoring responsibilities, description of what is to be monitored (e.g., data types), frequency of reviews, protocol compliance auditing procedures, adverse event reporting procedures, suspensions of clinical research, and conflicts of interest. A formal Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC), independent of the sponsor, was established in 2008 to ensure that all clinical trials that are greater than minimal risk at TCI have adequate data and safety monitoring plans. Interventional, Institutional studies, Investigator Initiated Trials (IIT) requesting that the TCI DSMC serve as the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board – as is the case with the current investigation – undergo review of the protocol and Data and Safety Monitoring Charter prior to review by the Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) review. The PRMC is charged with the review of all new cancer-related clinical research protocols at Mount Sinai to assess their scientific merit and prioritize them relative to the mission and scope of the TCI. The PRMC coordinator submits the protocol and charter to the DSMC for pre-review. The DSMC Chair, in coordination with the DSMC Administrator, assigns each initial review to a physician and a biostatistician based on the member’s disease specialty and accounting for conflicts of interest. The protocol is submitted before a monthly DSMC meeting, and questions for the PI and responses are documented in minutes. Protocol review includes a plan of review for each arm, dose level or stratum including the number of participants, predefined toxicities, dose adjustments, reporting structures for unanticipated problems and serious adverse event, response assessments, timing of reviews, dose limiting toxicities, dose escalation rules, stopping criteria of the trial for toxicity or efficacy, and criteria defining maximum tolerated dose. Approval of the monitoring plan and charter is required before PRMC approval and is reviewed annually. Further details are available in the TCI DSMC Charter. Adverse event reporting and harms {22} This is a minimal risk study, and we will only report Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) including deaths that are believed to be at least possibly related to the study intervention or participation. An adverse event is considered any of the following: death, a life-threatening adverse event, an adverse event that results in inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of an existing hospitalization, a persistent or significant incapacity or disruption to the ability to conduct normal life functions, a congenital anomaly/birth defect, and other important medical events that may not result in the above events but may jeopardize the patient or participant based on medical judgment and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes mentioned above. Frequency and plans for auditing trial conduct {23} Quality assurance reports will be generated by the study team throughout the study period to monitor participant accrual and completeness of participant registration data. Data quality reports will also be generated to assess data missingness or inconsistencies. Data from the first five participants will be additionally audited for data and consent/eligibility completeness, accuracy, and psychological symptom levels. Thereafter, random samples of data will be assessed for quality and protocol compliance. Plans for communicating important protocol amendments to relevant parties (e.g. trial participants, ethical committees) {25} All protocol amendments are reviewed by study investigators and approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board ethics committees at each study site. Dissemination plans {31a} Data from the current trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles. Discussion This trial builds on a previous pilot trial of MCP-C in caregivers of patients with glioblastoma multiforme that found preliminary evidence of improvements in meaning and purpose, spiritual well-being, and benefit finding. Here, this study protocol describes a fully powered randomized controlled trial to more comprehensively establish the efficacy of MCP-C versus SP-C on enhancing meaning, spiritual well-being, anxiety, depression, benefit finding, and social support, as well as on pre- and post-loss bereavement-related outcomes. Findings from this study will contribute to knowledge on the effects of MCP-C on existential distress, spirituality, and other psychosocial outcomes. It will also extend the psychosocial oncology and caregiving science literature to better understand the impact of MCP-C on bereavement outcomes in a diverse sample of caregivers of patients with advanced, solid-tumor cancers. Trial status This trial (Protocol Version 5) is currently recruiting and enrolling caregivers, collecting data, delivering the interventions, and collecting follow-up data. Recruitment began on 3/13/24 and the first participant was consented on that same day. We anticipate completing recruitment by March, 2028. Abbreviations ACP Advance Care Planning BFS Benefit Finding Scale CRC Clinical Research Coordinator FSSQ Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ISMMS Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai LAP-R PMI Life Attitude Profile-Revised, Personal Meaning Index MCP-C Meaning Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers MSK Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center SAE Serious Adverse Events SCCC Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center SP-C Supportive Psychotherapy for Caregivers SWBS FACIT Spiritual Well-Being Scale Declarations Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions {31b} AJA, WGL, and WSB conceived the trial. AJA, REB, TZ, and WGL developed the study design. AJA, MJL, and REB acquired and analyzed the data. AJA obtained the funding. All authors provided critical revisions to the manuscript. Funding {4} This study is funded by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA285621). Dr. Walsh’s effort is supported by the National Cancer Institute (T32CA225617). Availability of data and materials {29} Data and materials are available upon reasonable request and agreement from the study PI. The Study PI and biostatistician will have access to the final trial dataset. Ethics approval and consent to participate {24} This study has been approved by the institutional review boards of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (IRB #23-376) and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami (IRB #20240395. Written or verbal informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to study involvement. Consent for publication {32} All participants provide informed consent and are aware that their data will be de-identified for analysis and dissemination. Competing interests {28} AJA reports relationships with PsyOnc Partners, LLC and Roon. WGL reports relationships with PsyOnc Partners, LLC and Light in the Valley, LLC. Authors’ information (optional) Allison J. Applebaum, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected] . ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2140-5635 Leah E. Walsh, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected] Talia Zaider, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected] Raymond E. Baser, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected] Morgan Loschiavo, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected] William S. Breitbart, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected] Wendy G. Lichtenthal, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida. United States of America. [email protected] References AARP & National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the US 2025. AARP. 10.26419/ppi.00373.001 Ullgren H, Tsitsi T, Papastavrou E, Charalambous A. How family caregivers of cancer patients manage symptoms at home: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;85:68–79. Bakas T, Lewis RR, Parsons JE. Caregiving tasks among family caregivers of patients with lung cancer. In: Oncology Nursing Forum . Vol 28. 2001. Accessed February 21, 2025. http://www.ons.org/system/files/journal-article-pdfs/Bakas%2520June%25202001.pdf Deshields TL, Rihanek A, Potter P, et al. Psychosocial aspects of caregiving: perceptions of cancer patients and family caregivers. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:349–56. Harrison R, Raman M, Walpola RL, Chauhan A, Sansom-Daly UM. Preparing for partnerships in cancer care: an explorative analysis of the role of family-based caregivers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):620. 10.1186/s12913-021-06611-0 . Bedaso A, Dejenu G, Duko B. Depression among caregivers of cancer patients: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Psycho-oncology. 2022;31(11):1809–20. 10.1002/pon.6045 . De Padova S, Grassi L, Vagheggini A, et al. Post-traumatic stress symptoms in long‐term disease‐free cancer survivors and their family caregivers. Cancer Med. 2021;10(12):3974–85. 10.1002/cam4.3961 . Fried TR, O’Leary JR. Using the Experiences of Bereaved Caregivers to Inform Patient- and Caregiver-centered Advance Care Planning. J GEN INTERN MED. 2008;23(10):1602–7. 10.1007/s11606-008-0748-0 . Tsai CF, Lee YT, Lee WJ, Hwang JP, Wang SJ, Fuh JL. Depression of family caregivers is associated with disagreements on life-sustaining preferences for treating patients with dementia. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0133711. Boele FW, Given CW, Given BA, et al. Family caregivers’ level of mastery predicts survival of patients with glioblastoma: A preliminary report. Cancer. 2017;123(5):832–40. 10.1002/cncr.30428 . Hasdenteufel M, Quintard B. Psychosocial factors affecting the bereavement experience of relatives of palliative-stage cancer patients: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care. 2022;21(1):212. 10.1186/s12904-022-01096-y . Coelho A, Roberto M, Barros L, Barbosa A. Family caregiver grief and post-loss adjustment: A longitudinal cohort study. Palliat Support Care. 2022;20(3):348–56. Zordan RD, Bell ML, Price M, et al. Long-term prevalence and predictors of prolonged grief disorder amongst bereaved cancer caregivers: A cohort study. Palliat Support Care. 2019;17(5):507–14. Chochinov HM, Krisjanson LJ, Hack TF, Hassard T, McClement S, Harlos M. Dignity in the Terminally Ill: Revisited. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(3):666–72. 10.1089/jpm.2006.9.666 . Henery N. Constructions of spirituality in contemporary nursing theory. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(6):550–7. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02658.x . Currier JM, Holland JM, Neimeyer RA. Sense-making, grief, and the experience of violent loss: toward a mediational model. Death Stud. 2006;30(5):403–28. 10.1080/07481180600614351 . Sanderson C, Lobb EA, Mowll J, Butow PN, McGowan N, Price MA. Signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in caregivers following an expected death: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2013;27(7):625–31. 10.1177/0269216313483663 . Zisook S, Chentsova-Dutton Y, Shuchter SR. PTSD following bereavement. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1998;10(4):157–63. 10.1023/a:1022342028750 . Applebaum AJ, Kryza-Lacombe M, Buthorn J, DeRosa A, Corner G, Diamond EL. Existential distress among caregivers of patients with brain tumors: a review of the literature. Neuro-oncology Pract. 2016;3(4):232–44. Holland JM, Plant CP, Klingspon KL, Neimeyer RA. Bereavement-related regrets and unfinished business with the deceased. Death Stud. 2020;44(1):42–7. 10.1080/07481187.2018.1521106 . Klingspon KL, Holland JM, Neimeyer RA, Lichtenthal WG. Unfinished Business in Bereavement. Death Stud. 2015;39(7):387–98. 10.1080/07481187.2015.1029143 . Lichtenthal WG, Roberts KE, Catarozoli C, et al. Regret and unfinished business in parents bereaved by cancer: A mixed methods study. Palliat Med. 2020;34(3):367–77. 10.1177/0269216319900301 . Breitbart W, Poppito S, Rosenfeld B, et al. Pilot randomized controlled trial of individual meaning-centered psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1304–9. 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.2517 . Breitbart W, Pessin H, Rosenfeld B, et al. Individual meaning-centered psychotherapy for the treatment of psychological and existential distress: A randomized controlled trial in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer. 2018;124(15):3231–9. 10.1002/cncr.31539 . Applebaum AJ, Kulikowski JR, Breitbart W. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C): Rationale and Overview. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(6):1631–41. 10.1017/S1478951515000450 . Applebaum AJ, Baser RE, Roberts KE, et al. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers: A pilot trial among caregivers of patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12(8):841–52. 10.1093/tbm/ibac043 . Applebaum AJ, Roberts KE, Lynch K, et al. A qualitative exploration of the feasibility and acceptability of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers. Palliat Support Care. 2022;20(5):623–9. Lederberg MS, Holland JC. Supportive Psychotherapy in Cancer Care: An Essential Ingredient of All Therapy. In: Watson M, Kissane DW, editors. Handbook of Psychotherapy in Cancer Care. 1st ed. Wiley; 2011. pp. 1–14. 10.1002/9780470975176.ch1 . Rogers CR. Client-centered therapy. In: Psicoterapia Centrada En El Cliente: Práctica, Implicaciones y Teoría . 1966:459–459. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/psa-94875 Bloch S. An introduction to the psychotherapies. Published online 1986. Accessed November 25, 2024. https://philpapers.org/rec/BLOAIT-2 Lu K, Luo X, Chen PY. Sample Size Estimation for Repeated Measures Analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials with Missing Data. Int J Biostatistics. 2008;4(1). 10.2202/1557-4679.1098 . Roth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: A pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1904–8. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980515)82:10%3C1904::AID-CNCR13%3E3.0.CO;2-X. Devilly GJ, Borkovec TD. Psychometric properties of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2000;31(2):73–86. Borkovec TD, Nau SD. Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1972;3(4):257–60. Reker GT. The Life Attitude Profile-Revised:(LAP-R). Ontario, Canada: Student Psychologists Press Peterborough; 2001. Peterman AH, Fitchett G, Brady MJ, Hernandez L, Cella D. Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy—spiritual well-being scale (FACIT-Sp). ann behav med. 2002;24(1):49–58. 10.1207/s15324796abm2401_06 . Lambert S, Pallant JF, Girgis A. Rasch analysis of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale among caregivers of cancer survivors: implications for its use in psycho-oncology. Psycho-oncology. 2011;20(9):919–25. 10.1002/pon.1803 . Farran CJ, Miller BH, Kaufman JE, Donner E, Fogg L. Finding meaning through caregiving: Development of an instrument for family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease. J Clin Psychol. 1999;55(9):1107–25. 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679 . )55:9%3C1107::aid-jclp8%3E3.0.co;2-v. Tomich PL, Helgeson VS. Is finding something good in the bad always good? Benefit finding among women with breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2004;23(1):16. Urcuyo KR, Boyers AE, Carver CS, Antoni MH. Finding benefit in breast cancer: Relations with personality, coping, and concurrent well-being. Psychol Health. 2005;20(2):175–92. 10.1080/08870440512331317634 . Given CW, Given B, Stommel M, Collins C, King S, Franklin S. The caregiver reaction assessment (CRA) for caregivers to persons with chronic physical and mental impairments. Res Nurs Health. 1992;15(4):271–83. 10.1002/nur.4770150406 . Luo W, Liu M, Yao Y, Zeng Y. Measurement Properties of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Older People Nurs. 2025;20(3):e70024. 10.1111/opn.70024 . Saracino R, Kolva E, Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W. Measuring social support in patients with advanced medical illnesses: An analysis of the Duke–UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(5):1153–63. Barry LC, Kasl SV, Prigerson HG. Psychiatric disorders among bereaved persons: the role of perceived circumstances of death and preparedness for death. Am J geriatric psychiatry. 2002;10(4):447–57. Hebert RS, Prigerson HG, Schulz R, Arnold RM. Preparing Caregivers for the Death of a Loved One: A Theoretical Framework and Suggestions for Future Research. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(5):1164–71. 10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1164 . Hauksdottir A, Steineck G, Fürst CJ, Valdimarsdottir U. Long-term harm of low preparedness for a wife’s death from cancer—a population-based study of widowers 4–5 years after the loss. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(4):389–96. Lichtenthal WG, Viola M, Rogers M, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of EMPOWER for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients. Palliat Support Care. 2022;20(2):167–77. Roberts K, Holland J, Prigerson HG, et al. Development of the Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire (BRISQ): item generation and expert panel feedback. Palliat Support Care. 2017;15(1):57–66. Applebaum A, Reisch S, Pessin H, Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W. The role of meaning-centered psychotherapy in advanced care planning. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY. Volume 26. NJ USA: WILEY 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030 – 5774; 2017. pp. 53–53. Prigerson HG, Horowitz MJ, Jacobs SC, et al. Prolonged grief disorder: Psychometric validation of criteria proposed for DSM-V and ICD-11. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000121. Holland JM, Thompson KL, Rozalski V, Lichtenthal WG. Bereavement-related regret trajectories among widowed older adults. Journals Gerontol Ser B: Psychol Sci Social Sci. 2014;69(1):40–7. Liu GF, Lu K, Mogg R, Mallick M, Mehrotra DV. Should baseline be a covariate or dependent variable in analyses of change from baseline in clinical trials? Stat Med. 2009;28(20):2509–30. 10.1002/sim.3639 . Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics. 1982;38(4):963–74. Mallinckrod CH, Lane PW, Schnell D, Peng Y, Mancuso JP. Recommendations for the primary analysis of continuous endpoints in longitudinal clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2008;42(4):303–19. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309–34. 10.1037/a0020761 . Tingley D, Yamamoto T, Hirose K, Keele L, Imai K. Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. J Stat Softw. Published online 2014. Computing RR. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Core Team . Published online 2013. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1–67. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):51–71. Ibrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review. TEST. 2009;18(1):1–43. 10.1007/s11749-009-0138-x . Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, et al. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1355–60. 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730 . Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 21 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Trials → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 17 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 13 Nov, 2025 Editorial decision: Major revision 13 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7963562","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":584237808,"identity":"abbcbd7c-e067-4baf-afba-00818ce4fda2","order_by":0,"name":"Allison J. J. Applebaum","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2140-5635","institution":"Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Allison","middleName":"J. J.","lastName":"Applebaum","suffix":""},{"id":584237809,"identity":"24c0624e-2b41-4027-9d00-d504c376e161","order_by":1,"name":"Leah E. Walsh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leah","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Walsh","suffix":""},{"id":584237810,"identity":"40d64a61-5b15-488b-8b28-424ea24b9ce8","order_by":2,"name":"Talia Zaider","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Talia","middleName":"","lastName":"Zaider","suffix":""},{"id":584237811,"identity":"277020de-5806-44d6-a4e4-6dbbf0e062fa","order_by":3,"name":"Raymond E. Baser","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Department of Epidemiology \u0026 Biostatistics","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Raymond","middleName":"E.","lastName":"Baser","suffix":""},{"id":584237812,"identity":"fe75d78c-0036-40a8-8b1f-f557c5c634d6","order_by":4,"name":"Morgan J. Loschiavo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Morgan","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Loschiavo","suffix":""},{"id":584237813,"identity":"2aa56c9a-9194-4f89-97b3-abd586f0c47c","order_by":5,"name":"William S. Breitbart","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"William","middleName":"S.","lastName":"Breitbart","suffix":""},{"id":584237814,"identity":"c992ee52-62ee-45ea-86bb-0cdab5cdd96c","order_by":6,"name":"Wendy G. Lichtenthal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Miami Hospitals and Clinics: Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wendy","middleName":"G.","lastName":"Lichtenthal","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-27 22:19:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7963562/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7963562/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09621-7","type":"published","date":"2026-03-21T15:59:37+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101867607,"identity":"043bd022-1559-40ac-9f4f-a146c2eaad2e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 12:41:44","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":177244,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy timeline.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7963562/v1/ca58c036aec5eb4c94982edb.png"},{"id":101867608,"identity":"349ba616-9c4f-44ba-bb9c-46bcc8d149a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 12:41:45","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151846,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSPIRIT Figure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant timeline: Schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003eThis measure is only completed for the timepoints after which a participant has become bereaved, if applicable. These questionnaires are not completed by participants who are not bereaved.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7963562/v1/4535169b785aac8aaa07c2c8.png"},{"id":105224725,"identity":"09305fda-d17d-4872-9ccd-6068d6a9ce0d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-23 16:15:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2215793,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7963562/v1/58a7f25b-ab6a-4a71-ab61-59020fdd17bb.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial","fulltext":[{"header":"Administrative information","content":"\u003cp\u003eNote: the numbers in curly brackets in this protocol refer to SPIRIT checklist item numbers. The order of the items has been modified to group similar items (see http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"639\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTitle {1}\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C): Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrial registration {2a and 2b}.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06307535, registered on \u0026nbsp;03/05/2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehttps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06307535\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProtocol version {3}\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, July 22, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFunding {4}\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study is supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA285621).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthor details {5a}\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAllison J. Applebaum, PhD\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeah E. Walsh, PhD\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTalia Zaider, PhD\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRaymond E. Baser\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMorgan Loschiavo\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWilliam S. Breitbart\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWendy G. Lichtenthal\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eBrookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003eDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003eDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003eSylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eName and contact information for the trial sponsor {5b}\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study is funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01CA28561).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRole of sponsor {5c}\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis study is funded by the National Institutes of Health (R01CA285621).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\n\u003ch3\u003eBackground and rationale {6a}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver 63\u0026nbsp;million individuals in the United States are caregivers, with a significant portion providing care to patients with life-limiting cancers.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Caregivers of patients with cancer take on tremendous responsibilities across the illness trajectory, assisting with symptom management,\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e providing emotional support\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and navigating the healthcare team and treatment,\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e all while managing other personal, family, occupational, and financial responsibilities. The burden of cancer caregiving can lead to increased levels of anxiety, depression,\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e and posttraumatic stress.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Without timely intervention, such distress has the potential to negatively impact the care provided to patients\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR9\" citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and can contribute to poor adjustment and psychosocial outcomes in bereavement,\u003csup\u003e11,12\u003c/sup\u003e such as prolonged grief disorder.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key driver of these mental health outcomes is existential distress, characterized as a loss of meaning and purpose in life, decreased spiritual well-being, and hopelessness.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Existential distress is common among caregivers due to the competing demands of caregiving and personal life goals, and balancing hope for the present with an awareness of potential patient death in the future. Witnessing prolonged or aggressive medical treatment, patient suffering, or a decline in patient functioning can also contribute to existential distress.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR17\" citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Importantly, caregivers who experience existential distress are less likely to engage in advance care planning discussions with patients and healthcare professionals, which ultimately negatively impacts the care patients receive at the end of life.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e As such, addressing existential distress in cancer caregivers has profound benefits for caregivers, as well as the patients for whom they provide care. When existential distress is mitigated, caregivers are better able to cultivate deeper connections with patients and strengthen their sense of meaning in caregiving. This in turn can reduce regret and unfinished business and prevent poor bereavement outcomes.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR21\" citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Despite these facts, existential distress has historically remained unaddressed in psychosocial interventions for cancer caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning-Centered Psychotherapy (MCP)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e is an empirically supported intervention originally developed to help patients with advanced, life-limiting cancers connect to meaning and purpose, despite the challenges they face. Our team adapted MCP to assist cancer caregivers to connect to meaning and purpose and mitigate existential distress (Meaning Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers; MCP-C).\u003csup\u003e25,26\u003c/sup\u003e Developed with feedback from caregiver stakeholders, MCP-C is an existentially-oriented 7-session manualized intervention that helps caregivers connect \u0026ndash; or reconnect \u0026ndash; to sources of meaning and purpose in their life despite the challenges, limitations, and losses that come with caregiving. Our pilot trial of MCP-C among 60 caregivers of patients with glioblastoma evidenced strong preliminary effects on enhanced personal meaning, benefit finding, and spiritual well-being. The results of this pilot study, alongside qualitative feedback from participants that supported its feasibility and acceptability,\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e suggested that MCP-C should be tested in a larger, fully powered randomized controlled trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eObjectives {7}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis randomized controlled trial has three objectives. First, this study will investigate the efficacy of MCP-C versus Supportive Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (SP-C) on primary (i.e., sense of meaning in life, spiritual well-being) and secondary (i.e., anxiety, depression, sense of meaning in caregiving, benefit finding, caregiver burden, social support) outcomes immediately post treatment and explore maintenance in improvements up to 1-year post treatment (Aim 1). Second, this study will evaluate the role of sense of meaning in life as a mediator of improvements in key secondary outcomes (Aim 2). Third, this study will explore the effects of MCP-C on pre- and post-loss grief and bereavement outcomes (Aim 3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrial design {8}\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is a randomized controlled trial in which participating caregivers (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;200) are randomized 1:1 to either MCP-C or SP-C to test the efficacy of MCP-C versus SP-C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods: Participants, interventions and outcomes","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStudy setting {9}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe coordinating site for this trial is the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS). Participants are being recruited from two primary sites: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (SCCC), part of the University of Miami Health System. Caregivers will also be recruited through the community via the National Alliance for Caregiving and the American Cancer Society, who will share information about this trial with their listservs and on their social media platforms. Information about study participation will be included on all advertisements and posts and caregivers will be directed to contact ISMMS to learn more about study participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEligibility criteria {10}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants are eligible if they are: at least 18 years of age, can read and understand English, a self-reported current caregiver to a patient with Stage III or IV solid tumor cancer currently receiving any type of medical treatment (e.g., curative, palliative), reporting caregiving-related distress as evidenced by scoring a 4 or greater on an adapted Distress Thermometer (DT) for caregivers, and residing in New York, New Jersey, Florida, or Connecticut, or have the ability to complete sessions in compliance with current telehealth regulations. Participants are not eligible if they do not have a reasonable understanding of study procedures as judged by the consenting professional or if they are engaged in regular individual psychotherapeutic support that they are unable or unwilling to pause while receiving the study intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWho will take informed consent? {26a}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy team members trained in informed consent procedures will screen eligible participants, explain study procedures, and enroll caregivers who meet study inclusion criteria and provide informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAdditional consent provisions for collection and use of participant data and biological specimens {26b}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eN/A\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eInterventions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExplanation for the choice of comparators {6b}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are comparing MCP-C, the study intervention, to SP-C. SP-C is based on a model of Supportive Psychotherapy that has been used in previous randomized trials of MCP as the comparator intervention and was adapted to represent the standard of caregiver support in the community. It has also been standardized for use in RCTs.\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eIntervention description {11a}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C).\u003c/strong\u003e MCP-C is a 7-session intervention delivered individually over telehealth platforms that combines didactics, discussion, and experiential exercises focused on themes related to meaning and caregiving. Session 1 (\u003cem\u003eConcepts and Sources of Meaning\u003c/em\u003e) provides an overview of meaning and caregiving and asks participants to share their caregiving journey and their understanding of the word \u0026ldquo;caregiver.\u0026rdquo; Session 2 (\u003cem\u003eIdentity Before and After Becoming a Caregiver\u003c/em\u003e) focuses on how caregiving impacts participants\u0026rsquo; identities, highlighting both immutable aspects as well as the possibility for growth. Session 3 (\u003cem\u003eHistorical Sources of Meaning\u003c/em\u003e) focuses on the meaning derived through reflecting on one\u0026rsquo;s past legacy (i.e., family history and past life experiences that one does not choose), the present legacy caregivers are actively creating, and the future legacy they will give to others. Session 4 (\u003cem\u003eAttitudinal Sources of Meaning\u003c/em\u003e) focuses on helping caregivers to recognize where they have choice and how meaning can be derived through reflecting on how they choose to respond to life\u0026rsquo;s limitations and challenges, including how they choose to face the potential eventual death of their care partner. Session 5 (\u003cem\u003eCreative Sources of Meaning\u003c/em\u003e) focuses on meaning generated through creating one\u0026rsquo;s life (i.e., the activities they do or pursuits or interests that make them who they are), and highlights self-care as a key route through which caregivers can continue to create their lives, despite the challenges of caregiving. Session 6 (\u003cem\u003eExperiential Sources of Meaning\u003c/em\u003e) focuses on meaning derived through experiencing life through the five senses and through the experiences of love, beauty, and humor. Session 7 (\u003cem\u003eTransitions\u003c/em\u003e) reviews the material covered and provides space to reflect on the ways participants can continue to use these sources of meaning as resources moving forward. At the end each session, caregivers are encouraged to reflect on questions specific to the subsequent session\u0026rsquo;s theme for homework to help guide discussion and reflection.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupportive Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (SP-C).\u003c/strong\u003e SP-C is a 7-session intervention delivered individually over telehealth platforms based on conceptual models developed by Rogers\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e and Block.\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e SP-C incorporates client-centered, supportive strategies and offers caregivers a safe space to share challenges they face in their daily routines and experiences. For each session, the topic of discussion is determined by the caregiver and centers on their most pressing caregiving-related need at that time. Unlike in MCP-C, the therapist does not impose a structure or agenda onto the session. The role of the therapist is to provide supportive reflections, to acknowledge and validate their emotions and reactions in response to the caregiving role, to encourage caregivers\u0026rsquo; self-reflection, and to highlight adaptive coping responses to challenges, including support-seeking and self-care strategies. Therapists utilize\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecuriosity, acceptance, and openness to facilitate the therapeutic alliance to assist caregivers to explore and validate their experiences. SP-C has been utilized and standardized in past RCTs of MCP and tailored for cancer caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eCriteria for discontinuing or modifying allocated interventions {11b}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscontinuing the allocated intervention will only occur if the participant chooses to end their participation in the study or are no longer able to comply with telehealth regulations. Participants will not be able to modify their allocated intervention arm once randomized. There are no significant concerns of harm from either study arm that would require a change in study arm allocation. If participants become bereaved, they are welcome \u0026ndash; and encouraged \u0026ndash; to remain on the study, and bereavement-related adaptations are made to subsequent sessions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStrategies to improve adherence to interventions {11c}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe encourage participants to complete study sessions weekly and will be flexible with their schedule if they need to reschedule a session for a later date. We expect that the 7 study sessions will be completed within 14-weeks. This schedule flexibility will help to improve adherence to the intervention. All intervention sessions are audio/video recorded and a random sample of 30% of cases (100% of sessions for these participants) will be evaluated and rated for treatment integrity by independent raters throughout the study. We have developed comprehensive treatment manuals for MCP-C and SP-C to facilitate standardized delivery, and all interventionists undergo a half day training in either MCP-C or SP-C, followed by weekly group supervision sessions. Supervisors also review recorded sessions to facilitate reinforcement of model-specific strategies and alert therapists of any drift in model adherence. To reduce likelihood of treatment contamination, each condition is delivered by distinct treatment providers. Further, therapists monitor attendance and homework completion when relevant as part of session notes. Deviations from the protocol are recorded and discussed regularly during weekly group supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRelevant concomitant care permitted or prohibited during the trial {11d}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCaregivers will be ineligible for participation if they are engaged in regular individual psychotherapeutic support that they are unable or unwilling to put on hold for the course of the intervention. The use of psychotropic medications while engaging in the trial is permitted.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eProvisions for post-trial care {30}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere are no provisions for post-trial care. However, should a participant specifically request referrals for ongoing support after completion of the trial, the study team will provide appropriate resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eOutcomes {12}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe primary outcome measures are sense of meaning in life and spiritual well-being. Secondary outcome measures include anxiety and depression, sense of meaning and purpose in caregiving, benefit finding, caregiver burden, and social support. Pre-loss (preparedness for patient death, pre-loss grief intensity, risk for bereavement mental health challenges, engagement in advance care planning) and post-loss (presence of regret, unfinished business, post-loss grief intensity, risk for post-loss bereavement mental health challenges, and occurrence of advance care planning discussions and goal-concordant care at patients\u0026rsquo; end of life) bereavement outcomes will also be explored. The SPIRIT figure for the trial is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eParticipant timeline {13}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePotential participants will be screened for eligibility (approximately 5 minutes) and will meet criteria if they report distress\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 on the Distress Thermometer and indication that the distress is related to caregiving. If interested, participants will complete informed consent procedures and will be offered to immediately complete baseline (T1) assessments. Participants will have up to 45 days (consent expiration) to complete baseline assessments. Once baseline assessments are complete, they will be randomized to either MCP-C or SP-C and assigned to a therapist for 7 individual sessions that will be completed over Webex. Participants will have up to 14 weeks to complete all 7 sessions. After intervention completion, participants will complete follow-up assessments immediately post-treatment (T2, + 2 weeks), 6-month follow-up (T3, +/- 4 weeks) and 12-month follow-up (T4, +/- 8 weeks). See Fig.\u0026nbsp;1 for the full study timeline.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSample size {14}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants will be 200 caregivers recruited across study sites and the community, with 100 caregivers randomized to each study arm (MCP-C vs. SP-C). The sample size was chosen to provide 80% power to detect reasonable treatment effect sizes for our two primary endpoints while maintaining the Type 1 error rate at \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05 for these two comparisons. Using methods relevant to clinical trials with repeated measures,\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e we calculated the smallest effect size that we will be able to detect for the immediate post-treatment coefficient of the time-by-arm interaction term in our linear mixed model analysis of one of the two primary outcome measures (LAP-R PMI). Given the sample size (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;200), we will be able to detect a standardized mean difference treatment effect size between the two study arms of 0.48 standard deviations. This calculation assumed a correlation between baseline and follow-up measures of 0.5, 20% attrition by the post-treatment assessment, a two-sided significance test, and a type I error of .025 (0.05 overall for both primary endpoints).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRecruitment {15}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo maximize recruitment and retention, this study employs a multi-site design where participants will be recruited from outpatient clinics in various departments at MSK and SCCC. At both sites, we will employ three recruitment strategies. Flyers will be posted (digitally or using paper with the clinic\u0026rsquo;s permission) in clinics at MSK and SCCC. Study contact information will be provided on each flyer where caregivers can reach out to learn more about the study. Participants will also be recruited through patient appointments. Physicians will either directly provide caregivers with the contact information of the study team, or the study team will approach caregivers during or after patients\u0026rsquo; next clinic appointment and introduce the study. Third, if clinicians who are aware of the study receive an inquiry from a caregiver about supportive services, they will provide their information to the study team who will subsequently send a study invitation letter to the caregiver via email. The study team will then make 3\u0026ndash;5 follow-up calls/emails to discuss interest and participation with the caregiver.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecruitment from community partners will occur through listservs and social media channels (e.g., Twitter/X, Facebook) of both the American Cancer Society and the National Alliance for Caregiving in states where MCP-C and SP-C supervisors are licensed (New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Connecticut). These advertisements will include study team information and will direct potential participants to contact the study team by email. Caregivers from New York and New Jersey will be enrolled at MSK, and those from Florida and Connecticut will be enrolled at SCCC. During the initial approach and informed consent conversation, study team members will ensure that participants reside in a state where the MCP-C and SP-C supervisors are licensed and may be asked to provide certain health information that is necessary for the recruitment and enrollment process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAssignment of interventions: allocation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSequence generation {16a}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants will be randomized to either MCP-C or SP-C using MSK\u0026rsquo;s Clinical Research Database, a secure computer system that ensure allocation concealment. Randomization will be 1:1 (MCP-C:SP-C) stratified by study site (MSK, SCCC, Community/MSK, and Community/SCCC) using randomly permuted blocks of random length. Given the clear focus of MCP-C versus SP-C on unique meaning-focused themes, participants and their study interventionists will not be blinded to intervention assignment. The study biostatistician will also not be blinded to treatment assignment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eConcealment mechanism {16b}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eImplementation {16c}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants will be randomized 1:1, stratified by study site, to MCP-C or SP-C using MSK\u0026rsquo;s Clinical Research Database, a secure computer system that ensures allocation concealment that uses randomly permuted blocks of random length to allocate participants to study arm. Participants will be enrolled by a consenting professional at the corresponding study site.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAssignment of interventions: Blinding\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eWho will be blinded {17a}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNeither participants nor their study interventionists will be blinded to intervention assignment due to the clear focus of the MCP-C intervention on meaning and existential content and SP-C on the provision of support.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eProcedure for unblinding if needed {17b}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData collection and management\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePlans for assessment and collection of outcomes {18a}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData will be collected via self-report measures using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web application for creating and managing online survey databases. The Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) will send all study assessments to participants at the appropriate timepoint. Outcomes will be measured at four timepoints: baseline, directly after informed consent or until consent expiration (i.e., 45 days; T1), immediately post-intervention\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;2 weeks (T2), 6-month follow-up +/- 4 weeks (T3), and 12-month follow-up +/- 8 weeks (T4). This will allow flexibility for study assessment completion and aid caregiver retention throughout the entire study. All data collection forms can be found in the study protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt baseline, (T1), participants will complete demographic information (e.g., age, sex, race, ethnicity, income), caregiving characteristics (e.g., relationship to the patient, length of caregiving), and a survey about psychosocial service use, preferences, and perceived barriers, using established questionnaires from our group\u0026rsquo;s previous studies. Participants will also complete all outcome measures (i.e., sense of meaning in life, spiritual well-being, anxiety and depression, benefit finding, meaning in caregiving, caregiver burden, and social support) at T1. At T2, in addition to study outcome measures, participants will complete the Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) to assess treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness. Pre-loss (preparedness for patient death, pre-loss grief intensity, risk for bereavement mental health challenges, engagement in advance care planning) and post-loss (presence of regret, unfinished business, post-loss grief intensity, risk for post-loss bereavement mental health challenges, and occurrence of advance care planning discussions and goal-concordant care at patients\u0026rsquo; end of life) bereavement outcomes will also be explored at all time points.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDescription of study measures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eScreening and non-outcome measures\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCaregiving-related distress.\u003c/strong\u003e A modified version of the Distress Thermometer\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e will be used to screen for distress related to caregiving. Participants are asked to rate their distress on a scale of 0\u0026ndash;10 (cutoff score\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4) and indicate that their distress is related to caregiving to be eligible for the study. The Distress Thermometer will be administered at screening only.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment Acceptability and Perceived Effectiveness\u003c/strong\u003e. The CEQ is a 6-item measure of treatment acceptability and perceived effectiveness.\u003csup\u003e33,34\u003c/sup\u003e This measure has been used extensively in prior research and has strong psychometric properties.\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e The CEQ is administered at T2 only.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePrimary outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSense of Meaning in Life\u003c/strong\u003e. The LAP-R PMI\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e is a 48-item measure of meaning in life, with items rated on a 7-point Likert scale from \u003cem\u003eStrongly Agree\u003c/em\u003e to \u003cem\u003eStrongly Disagree\u003c/em\u003e, with higher scores indicating a stronger presence of that type of meaning. The LAP-R generates two composite scores: the Personal Meaning Index (PMI) and Existential Transcendence (ET). The LAP-R has demonstrated strong internal consistency in previous research (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; range: .77-.91).\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e The LAP-R PMI is administered at T1-T4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpiritual Wellbeing\u003c/strong\u003e. The FACIT Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS)\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e is a 12-item measure of spiritual well-being measured on a 0 (Not at all) to 4 (very much) scale, with higher scores indicating higher spiritual wellbeing. This measure has demonstrated strong internal consistency across all subscales in cancer caregivers (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; range: .88-.93).\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e The SWBS is administered at T1-T4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSecondary outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnxiety and Depressive Symptoms\u003c/strong\u003e. The HADS is a 14-item measure of anxiety and depressive symptoms with items rated on a 0 to 3 scale, with higher scores indicating greater symptomatology. A total score and anxiety and depression subscale scores are generated. The total HADS and its subscales has demonstrated strong internal consistency in cancer caregiver populations (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; range: .82-.92).\u003csup\u003e26,37\u003c/sup\u003e The HADS is administered at T1-T4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSense of Meaning and Purpose in Caregiving\u003c/strong\u003e. The Attitudes Toward Caregiving Scale (ATCS)\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e is a 43-item measure rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale that examines the extent to which caregivers find meaning in caregiving. Scores can be summed for a total score in addition to three subscales: loss/powerlessness, provisional meaning, and ultimate meaning, with higher scores indicating higher overall meaning and purpose. The ATCS is administered at T1-T4, in non-bereaved caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBenefit Finding\u003c/strong\u003e. The BFS is a 17-item measure of perceived benefit finding that has been modified for careger populations. It has been used in our group\u0026rsquo;s previous research and has demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; range: .91 to .95.\u003csup\u003e39,40\u003c/sup\u003e The BFS is administered at T1-T4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCaregiver Burden\u003c/strong\u003e. The CRA is a 24-item measure with items scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale.\u003csup\u003e41\u003c/sup\u003e Items are summed for a total score (range: 24\u0026ndash;120) across five subscales: self-esteem, family support, impact on finances, schedule, and health. The CRA is a widely used measure of caregiver burden that has demonstrated good internal consistency and construct validity.\u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e The CRA is administered at T1-T4 in non-bereaved caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Support\u003c/strong\u003e. The FSSQ is an 8-item measure of perceived social support. Items are summed to a total score ranging from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater perceived social support. The FSSQ has demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94).\u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e The FSSQ will be administered at T1-T4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eBereavement related outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePre-Loss Outcomes:\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePreparedness for Patient Death\u003c/strong\u003e. The Preparedness for Patient Death item asks participants \u0026ldquo;If your care partner were to die soon, how prepared would you be for his/her death?\u0026rdquo; Response options are \u0026ldquo;not at all,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;somewhat,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;very.\u0026rdquo; This item is based on previous studies of preparedness for loss.\u003csup\u003e44\u0026ndash;46\u003c/sup\u003e Preparedness for patient death is measured at T1-T4 in non-bereaved caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-loss grief intensity\u003c/strong\u003e. The Prolonged Grief-12-Revised (PG-12-R) is a 12-item measure of pre-loss grief, adapted from a measure of prolonged grief symptoms\u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e that is worded to reflect the patient as living. PG-12-R items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with total scores ranging from 11\u0026ndash;55, with higher scores suggesting greater anticipatory grief. The PG-12-R has demonstrated strong internal consistency,\u003csup\u003e47\u003c/sup\u003e and is administered at T1-T4 to non-bereaved caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRisk for Bereavement-Related Mental Health Challenges\u003c/strong\u003e. The Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire-Pre-Loss (BRISQ-P) is a 30-item screener for bereavement mental health challenges, with items rated on a 5-point Likert scale.\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e The BRISQ-P assesses illness or death-related and bereavement-related risk factors and is administered at T1-T4 to non-bereaved caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdvance Care Planning Engagement.\u003c/strong\u003e Engagement in advance care planning will be measured\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eby the Advance Care Planning (ACP) Checklist\u0026ndash;Current Caregiver\u003csup\u003e49\u003c/sup\u003e which includes 14 items that ask caregivers about previous ACP discussions and domains of ACP (e.g., prognosis, goals of care, execution of advance directives). Items are scored and summed to a total score. This checklist is administered at T1-T4 to non-bereaved caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePost-Loss Outcomes:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePost-loss grief intensity\u003c/strong\u003e. The Prolonged Grief-13-Revised (PG-13-R) is a 13-item measure that evaluates symptoms of prolonged grief disorder.\u003csup\u003e50\u003c/sup\u003e It assesses 10 grief-related symptoms on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores range from 10\u0026ndash;50 with higher scores indicating greater grief intensity. The PG-13-R is administered at T2-T4 to caregivers who become bereaved during the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRisk for bereavement-related mental health challenges post-death\u003c/strong\u003e. The Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire-Post-Loss (BRISQ-B) is a measure of risk for bereavement mental health challenges following the patient\u0026rsquo;s death.\u003csup\u003e48\u003c/sup\u003e It is nearly identical to the BRISQ-P but items are modified to refer to the patient\u0026rsquo;s death rather than their illness. It also includes items related to the bereavement experience. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The BRISQ-B is administered at T2-T4 to caregivers who become bereaved during the study period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePresence of Regret.\u003c/strong\u003e The single Presence of Regret item\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e asks caregivers, \u0026ldquo;Do you regret any of your actions or choices that occurred while providing care to your loved one with cancer when they were ill?\u0026rdquo; with a dichotomous yes/no response option. For those who report yes, they will be asked to provide an example of their most troubling regret and to rate their distress about the stated regret on a 10-point scale (10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;most distressed). The Presence of Regret item will be administered at T2-T4 for those caregivers who become bereaved during the study period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnfinished business\u003c/strong\u003e. The single Unfinished Business item asks caregivers, \u0026ldquo;Do you feel that anything was unfinished, unsaid, or unresolved in your relationship with your loved one with cancer?\u0026rdquo; with a yes/no response option. If yes, caregivers are asked to provide an example of their most troubling source of unfinished business and to rate their distress about this on a 10-point scale (10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;most distressed). This item was developed to be face valid and consistent with theory on regret and unfinished business,\u003csup\u003e20,20,51\u003c/sup\u003e and has demonstrated good concurrent validity.\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdvance Care Planning Engagement.\u003c/strong\u003e Caregivers who become bereaved will complete the Advance Care Planning Checklist\u0026ndash;Past Caregiver, which mirrors the Advance Care Planning Checklist-Current Caregiver, but asks about what type of care the patient received at end of life, where the patient died, and if the location of death and care provided were consistent with the patient\u0026rsquo;s stated wishes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec37\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePlans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up {18b}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants will be compensated $10 for each intervention session they complete. They will also be compensated $5 for completing baseline assessments (T1), $10 for completing post-intervention assessments (T2), $15 for completing 6-month follow-up assessments (T3), and $20 for completing 12-month follow-up assessments (T4). Participants are sent a maximum of three emails and called a maximum of three times to remind them to complete each survey. Those participants who discontinue their involvement in the study intervention will be asked to continue to complete study assessments and will receive reimbursement for completed assessments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData management {19}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA Clinical Research Coordinator (CRC) is assigned to this study whose responsibilities include project management and compliance, data collection, data entry, data reporting, regulatory monitoring, identifying and resolving problems, and coordinating activities related to the study protocol. The maintained dataset will include minimal data (race, ethnicity, sex, and age) and will be entered into the Clinical Research Administration Clinical Trials Management System.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData collected for this study will be entered into and managed via the secure Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) Database. REDCap is an open-source platform that allows for data collection in a secure manner over a web-based interface. The REDCap platform was developed by Vanderbilt University with whom ISMMS has a standing agreement to allow the usage of REDCap for academic/research purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo ensure data quality, reports will be generated periodically to monitor accrual and completeness of participant registration data. Data quality reports will also be generated to assess for missing data and inconsistencies. Throughout the study, data on accrual rates and follow-up will be monitored to identify any potential problems which will be brought to the attention of the study team during weekly team meetings. An audit of consent and eligibility data will be performed with the first five enrolled participants to assess for data completeness and data accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eConfidentiality {27}\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch staff involved in participant recruitment will provide an overview of the study, invite potential participants to participate, and discuss potential risks and benefits during the informed consent process. All participants are required to provide informed consent prior to completing study assessments and the intervention. Participants can choose to skip any question in the assessment battery they do not wish to answer. Participants who report experiencing psychological distress related to completing study questions will be offered support from the enrolling institutions\u0026rsquo; counseling or supportive care services or receive community referrals for mental health providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen presenting study results, data will be presented for the entire sample and will not reference any individual participant\u0026rsquo;s data. All survey data will be de-identified using a code number to ensure confidentiality of participant data. For research staff who need to access study data, password security measures and other relevant restrictions will be applied to maintain confidentiality. Confidential data will only be accessible on a \u0026ldquo;need to know\u0026rdquo; basis for any particular research staff member. All personnel involved with the study will receive training in HIPAA and human subjects\u0026rsquo; protections, and will receive information on the ethics of accessing electronic data.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlans for collection, laboratory evaluation and storage of biological specimens for genetic or molecular analysis in this trial/future use {33}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo biospecimen data will be collected as part of study aims and procedures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStatistical methods\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStatistical methods for primary and secondary outcomes {20a}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics will be calculated for baseline demographic and caregiver clinical variables, summarizing each outcome by treatment arm. We will assess the distribution of each study outcome and, if necessary, perform corrective transformations before calculating inferential statistics. We will also perform all efficacy analyses by the intention-to-treat principle, meaning that all randomized participations will be analyzed regardless of drop-out or treatment adherence in their respective study arm. All endpoint comparisons between study arms will be adjusted for the randomization stratification variable (study site).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAim 1 Analytic Plan: The primary and secondary outcome measures for Aim 1 are all continuous variables assessed repeatedly over the four timepoints: baseline (T1), immediately post-treatment (T2), 6-month follow-up (T3) and 12-month follow-up (T4). The co-primary efficacy endpoints for Aim 1 are the LAP-R PMI and FACIT SWBS at the immediately post-treatment assessment (T2). We will consider MCP-C efficacious if MCP-C participants have significantly greater improvements than SP-C participants in LAP-R PMI or FACIT SWBS scores at T2 at the p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.025 statistical significance threshold in the analysis described below. We will analyze each continuous primary and secondary outcome measure by using constrained linear mixed model (cLMM) regression.\u003csup\u003e52\u0026ndash;54\u003c/sup\u003e This statistical method accounts for within-subject correlations due to repeated measurement of participants and, under the reasonable missing at random (MAR) assumption, allows unbiased estimation of between-group differences without excluding participants with missing follow-up data. Each of these outcome measures will be analyzed using a separate cLMM regression with random intercept that will model the baseline and repeated follow-up scores (dependent variable) as a function of time (categorical) and the time-by arm interaction, controlling for the randomization stratification variable (study site). The cLMM method will also constrain the two study arms to have a common baseline mean on the outcome measure to reflect the pre-randomization nature of the baseline assessment (T1).\u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e All randomized participants will have, at a minimum, the baseline (T1) primary outcome assessments and will be included in the cLMM per the intention-to-treat principal. In the cLMM parameterization, the coefficients for the time-by-arm interaction are equivalent to the differences between arms in outcome measure score changes from baseline to the post-baseline time points, and they will be calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For each co-primary endpoint (LAP-R PMI and FACIT SWBS), we will conclude that MCP-C participants had significantly larger improvements in the endpoint at T2 compared to SP-C if the time-by-arm interaction coefficient for T2 is significantly larger than 0 at the \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.025 level. The secondary outcome measures will be compared between study arms using similar cLMM analyses. However, we will assess estimated treatment effects at each timepoint using 95% CIs instead of p-values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAim 2 Analytic Plan: We will use model-based causal mediation analysis (CMA)\u003csup\u003e55\u003c/sup\u003e to evaluate whether changes in sense of meaning in life (LAP-R PMI) immediately post-treatment (T2) mediate the effect of treatment arm on benefit finding (BFS), anxiety (HADS-A), and depression (HADS-D) at 6-month follow-up. We will use the \u003cem\u003emediation\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e56\u003c/sup\u003e package in R\u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e to conduct mediation analyses for each of the three outcomes (BFS, HADS-A, HADS-D). Each mediation analysis will estimate the average causal mediation effect (ACME, the effect of the treatment arm on the outcome via the mediator), average direct effect (ADE, effect of treatment arm on the outcome measure excluding the mediation), the average total effect (ATE, sum of the ACME and ATE), and the proportion of the ATE mediated by the mediator variable (ACME/ATE). To estimate these effects, we will input two models, (1) a mediator model and (2) an outcome model, to the estimation functions in the \u003cem\u003emediation\u003c/em\u003e R package. The (1) mediator model will be a linear regression with T2 LAP-R PMI as the dependent variable, and treatment arm and baseline (T1) LAP-R PMI as independent variables, controlling for baseline outcome measure (e.g., T1 BFS) and study site (randomization stratification variable). The (2) outcome model will be a linear regression with the T3 outcome measure (e.g., BFS) as the dependent variable, and treatment arm, baseline outcome measure, T2 and T1 LAP-R PMI, and study site (randomization stratification variable) as independent variables. We will conduct these mediation analyses once excluding those participants with missing data for any variables in the model, and we will conduct sensitivity analyses replicating the model after applying multiple imputation of missing data using chained equation analyses.\u003csup\u003e58\u003c/sup\u003e Other sensitivity analyses will be conducted to evaluate results testing the impact of unmeasured pre-treatment confounding variables.\u003csup\u003e59\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAim 3 Analytic Plan: Based on our group\u0026rsquo;s prior research, we estimate approximately 50 (25%) participants in this study will be become bereaved by the 12-month follow-up assessment (T4). Among the subset of non-bereaved caregivers, we will utilize the same cLMM analysis used in assessing the secondary outcomes in Aim 1 to examine differences between study arms in risk for bereavement mental health challenges (BRISQ-P) and pre-loss grief (PG-12-R). Multinomial logistic regression analyses will assess between-arm differences in T4 preparedness for loss in this subset, controlling for study site and baseline preparedness for loss. Among the subset of caregivers who become bereaved by T4, we will assess between-arm differences in T4 risk for bereavement mental health challenges (BRISQ-B), post-loss grief (PG-13-R), and presence of regret (single item, yes/no) using linear (BRISQ-B, PG-13-R) and logistic (presence of regret) regression models controlling for study site and time since bereavement. Also, among those bereaved before T4, we will test whether higher post-treatment (T2) preparedness for patient death and/or engagement in ACP discussions (ACP Execution Checklist score) are associated with lower levels of T4 post-loss grief (PG-13-R) by fitting linear regression models predicting T4 PG-13-R scores. These models will control for study site, time since bereavement, and treatment arm, and they will include either T2 preparedness for patient death or the ACP Execution Checklist score as the focal predictor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInterim analyses {21b}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMethods for additional analyses (e.g. subgroup analyses) {20b}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll detailed analyses comparing study arms (MCP-C versus SP-C) will be adjusted for randomization stratification variable (study site).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods in analysis to handle protocol non-adherence and any statistical methods to handle missing data {20c}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEfforts to minimize missing data include ensuring an efficient and organized trial design, robust training of research staff, and reducing participant burden by utilizing remote study assessments rather than in-person visits. For participants who report time constraints or difficulty completing study assessments, we will ask them to only complete primary outcome measures (LAP-R and FACIT SWBS) in order to minimize missing data regarding primary study aims. Missing data will be treated using sensitivity analyses and other data analytic approaches that are responsive to missingness. Specifically, we will first exam whether data missingness is associated with variables such as randomization arm and baseline outcome measures by comparing caregivers with complete data to those with missing data. If data is not missing at random, then we will modify analyses by controlling for factors associated with data missingness.\u003csup\u003e60,61\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePlans to give access to the full protocol, participant level-data and statistical code {31c}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReasonable requests for the study protocol or de-identified data can be made to the Principal Investigator.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOversight and monitoring\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComposition of the coordinating centre and trial steering committee {5d}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study team at the coordinating center, ISMMS, is comprised of the CRC and study Principal Investigator. Co-Investigators are housed at MSK and SCCC. The study team at the coordinating site meets weekly to discuss recruitment, active participant, and study questionnaire completion updates. There is no trial steering committee for the current study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComposition of the data monitoring committee, its role and reporting structure {21a}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eISMMS/Tisch Cancer Institute (TCI) is serving as the IRB of record, and as such, the data and safety monitoring plan is standard to clinical trials completed at TCI. The TCI Data and Safety Monitoring (DSM) Plan ensures that all clinical trials are high quality, routinely monitored, and meet sponsor, institutional, and governmental requirements. The Plan includes all required elements of the DSM as defined by the NIH and the NCI: monitoring responsibilities, description of what is to be monitored (e.g., data types), frequency of reviews, protocol compliance auditing procedures, adverse event reporting procedures, suspensions of clinical research, and conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA formal Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC), independent of the sponsor, was established in 2008 to ensure that all clinical trials that are greater than minimal risk at TCI have adequate data and safety monitoring plans. Interventional, Institutional studies, Investigator Initiated Trials (IIT) requesting that the TCI DSMC serve as the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board \u0026ndash; as is the case with the current investigation \u0026ndash; undergo review of the protocol and Data and Safety Monitoring Charter prior to review by the Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) review. The PRMC is charged with the review of all new cancer-related clinical research protocols at Mount Sinai to assess their scientific merit and prioritize them relative to the mission and scope of the TCI. The PRMC coordinator submits the protocol and charter to the DSMC for pre-review. The DSMC Chair, in coordination with the DSMC Administrator, assigns each initial review to a physician and a biostatistician based on the member\u0026rsquo;s disease specialty and accounting for conflicts of interest. The protocol is submitted before a monthly DSMC meeting, and questions for the PI and responses are documented in minutes. Protocol review includes a plan of review for each arm, dose level or stratum including the number of participants, predefined toxicities, dose adjustments, reporting structures for unanticipated problems and serious adverse event, response assessments, timing of reviews, dose limiting toxicities, dose escalation rules, stopping criteria of the trial for toxicity or efficacy, and criteria defining maximum tolerated dose. Approval of the monitoring plan and charter is required before PRMC approval and is reviewed annually.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther details are available in the TCI DSMC Charter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAdverse event reporting and harms {22}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is a minimal risk study, and we will only report Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) including deaths that are believed to be at least possibly related to the study intervention or participation. An adverse event is considered any of the following: death, a life-threatening adverse event, an adverse event that results in inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of an existing hospitalization, a persistent or significant incapacity or disruption to the ability to conduct normal life functions, a congenital anomaly/birth defect, and other important medical events that may not result in the above events but may jeopardize the patient or participant based on medical judgment and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes mentioned above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFrequency and plans for auditing trial conduct {23}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuality assurance reports will be generated by the study team throughout the study period to monitor participant accrual and completeness of participant registration data. Data quality reports will also be generated to assess data missingness or inconsistencies. Data from the first five participants will be additionally audited for data and consent/eligibility completeness, accuracy, and psychological symptom levels. Thereafter, random samples of data will be assessed for quality and protocol compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePlans for communicating important protocol amendments to relevant parties (e.g. trial participants, ethical committees) {25}\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll protocol amendments are reviewed by study investigators and approved by the appropriate Institutional Review Board ethics committees at each study site.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDissemination plans {31a}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData from the current trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis trial builds on a previous pilot trial of MCP-C in caregivers of patients with glioblastoma multiforme that found preliminary evidence of improvements in meaning and purpose, spiritual well-being, and benefit finding. Here, this study protocol describes a fully powered randomized controlled trial to more comprehensively establish the efficacy of MCP-C versus SP-C on enhancing meaning, spiritual well-being, anxiety, depression, benefit finding, and social support, as well as on pre- and post-loss bereavement-related outcomes. Findings from this study will contribute to knowledge on the effects of MCP-C on existential distress, spirituality, and other psychosocial outcomes. It will also extend the psychosocial oncology and caregiving science literature to better understand the impact of MCP-C on bereavement outcomes in a diverse sample of caregivers of patients with advanced, solid-tumor cancers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTrial status\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis trial (Protocol Version 5) is currently recruiting and enrolling caregivers, collecting data, delivering the interventions, and collecting follow-up data. Recruitment began on 3/13/24 and the first participant was consented on that same day. We anticipate completing recruitment by March, 2028.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eACP\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvance Care Planning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eBFS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBenefit Finding Scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCRC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical Research Coordinator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eFSSQ\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eHADS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHospital Anxiety and Depression Scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eISMMS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eLAP-R PMI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLife Attitude Profile-Revised, Personal Meaning Index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMCP-C\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eMSK\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSAE\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSerious Adverse Events\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSCCC\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSP-C\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupportive Psychotherapy for Caregivers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSWBS\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFACIT Spiritual Well-Being Scale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions {31b}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAJA, WGL, and WSB conceived the trial. AJA, REB, TZ, and WGL developed the study design. AJA, MJL, and REB acquired and analyzed the data. AJA obtained the funding. All authors provided critical revisions to the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding {4}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is funded by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA285621). Dr. Walsh’s effort is supported by the National Cancer Institute (T32CA225617).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials {29}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData and materials are available upon reasonable request and agreement from the study PI. The Study PI and biostatistician will have access to the final trial dataset.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate {24}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has been approved by the institutional review boards of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (IRB #23-376) and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami (IRB #20240395. Written or verbal informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to study involvement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication {32}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provide informed consent and are aware that their data will be de-identified for analysis and dissemination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests {28}\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAJA reports relationships with PsyOnc Partners, LLC and Roon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWGL reports relationships with PsyOnc Partners, LLC and Light in the Valley, LLC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003einformation (optional)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAllison J. Applebaum, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected]. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2140-5635\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeah E. Walsh, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. United States of America. \u0026nbsp;[email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTalia Zaider, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. \u0026nbsp;[email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRaymond E. Baser, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. \u0026nbsp;[email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMorgan Loschiavo, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. [email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWilliam S. Breitbart, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. United States of America. \u0026nbsp;[email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWendy G. Lichtenthal,\u0026nbsp;Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami, Florida.\u0026nbsp;United States of America.\u0026nbsp;[email protected]\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAARP \u0026amp; National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the US 2025. AARP. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.26419/ppi.00373.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26419/ppi.00373.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUllgren H, Tsitsi T, Papastavrou E, Charalambous A. How family caregivers of cancer patients manage symptoms at home: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;85:68\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBakas T, Lewis RR, Parsons JE. Caregiving tasks among family caregivers of patients with lung cancer. In: \u003cem\u003eOncology Nursing Forum\u003c/em\u003e. Vol 28. 2001. Accessed February 21, 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ons.org/system/files/journal-article-pdfs/Bakas%2520June%25202001.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ons.org/system/files/journal-article-pdfs/Bakas%2520June%25202001.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeshields TL, Rihanek A, Potter P, et al. Psychosocial aspects of caregiving: perceptions of cancer patients and family caregivers. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:349\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarrison R, Raman M, Walpola RL, Chauhan A, Sansom-Daly UM. Preparing for partnerships in cancer care: an explorative analysis of the role of family-based caregivers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):620. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12913-021-06611-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12913-021-06611-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBedaso A, Dejenu G, Duko B. Depression among caregivers of cancer patients: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Psycho-oncology. 2022;31(11):1809\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/pon.6045\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pon.6045\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Padova S, Grassi L, Vagheggini A, et al. Post-traumatic stress symptoms in long‐term disease‐free cancer survivors and their family caregivers. Cancer Med. 2021;10(12):3974\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/cam4.3961\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/cam4.3961\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFried TR, O\u0026rsquo;Leary JR. Using the Experiences of Bereaved Caregivers to Inform Patient- and Caregiver-centered Advance Care Planning. J GEN INTERN MED. 2008;23(10):1602\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11606-008-0748-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11606-008-0748-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsai CF, Lee YT, Lee WJ, Hwang JP, Wang SJ, Fuh JL. Depression of family caregivers is associated with disagreements on life-sustaining preferences for treating patients with dementia. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0133711.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoele FW, Given CW, Given BA, et al. Family caregivers\u0026rsquo; level of mastery predicts survival of patients with glioblastoma: A preliminary report. Cancer. 2017;123(5):832\u0026ndash;40. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/cncr.30428\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/cncr.30428\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHasdenteufel M, Quintard B. Psychosocial factors affecting the bereavement experience of relatives of palliative-stage cancer patients: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care. 2022;21(1):212. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12904-022-01096-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12904-022-01096-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoelho A, Roberto M, Barros L, Barbosa A. Family caregiver grief and post-loss adjustment: A longitudinal cohort study. Palliat Support Care. 2022;20(3):348\u0026ndash;56.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZordan RD, Bell ML, Price M, et al. Long-term prevalence and predictors of prolonged grief disorder amongst bereaved cancer caregivers: A cohort study. Palliat Support Care. 2019;17(5):507\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChochinov HM, Krisjanson LJ, Hack TF, Hassard T, McClement S, Harlos M. Dignity in the Terminally Ill: Revisited. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(3):666\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1089/jpm.2006.9.666\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1089/jpm.2006.9.666\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenery N. Constructions of spirituality in contemporary nursing theory. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(6):550\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02658.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02658.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCurrier JM, Holland JM, Neimeyer RA. Sense-making, grief, and the experience of violent loss: toward a mediational model. Death Stud. 2006;30(5):403\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481180600614351\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481180600614351\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSanderson C, Lobb EA, Mowll J, Butow PN, McGowan N, Price MA. Signs of post-traumatic stress disorder in caregivers following an expected death: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2013;27(7):625\u0026ndash;31. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0269216313483663\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0269216313483663\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZisook S, Chentsova-Dutton Y, Shuchter SR. PTSD following bereavement. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1998;10(4):157\u0026ndash;63. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1023/a:1022342028750\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/a:1022342028750\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApplebaum AJ, Kryza-Lacombe M, Buthorn J, DeRosa A, Corner G, Diamond EL. Existential distress among caregivers of patients with brain tumors: a review of the literature. Neuro-oncology Pract. 2016;3(4):232\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolland JM, Plant CP, Klingspon KL, Neimeyer RA. Bereavement-related regrets and unfinished business with the deceased. Death Stud. 2020;44(1):42\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481187.2018.1521106\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481187.2018.1521106\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlingspon KL, Holland JM, Neimeyer RA, Lichtenthal WG. Unfinished Business in Bereavement. Death Stud. 2015;39(7):387\u0026ndash;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/07481187.2015.1029143\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07481187.2015.1029143\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLichtenthal WG, Roberts KE, Catarozoli C, et al. Regret and unfinished business in parents bereaved by cancer: A mixed methods study. Palliat Med. 2020;34(3):367\u0026ndash;77. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0269216319900301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0269216319900301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBreitbart W, Poppito S, Rosenfeld B, et al. Pilot randomized controlled trial of individual meaning-centered psychotherapy for patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(12):1304\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1200/JCO.2011.36.2517\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1200/JCO.2011.36.2517\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBreitbart W, Pessin H, Rosenfeld B, et al. Individual meaning-centered psychotherapy for the treatment of psychological and existential distress: A randomized controlled trial in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer. 2018;124(15):3231\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/cncr.31539\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/cncr.31539\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApplebaum AJ, Kulikowski JR, Breitbart W. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers (MCP-C): Rationale and Overview. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(6):1631\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/S1478951515000450\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S1478951515000450\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApplebaum AJ, Baser RE, Roberts KE, et al. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers: A pilot trial among caregivers of patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Transl Behav Med. 2022;12(8):841\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/tbm/ibac043\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/tbm/ibac043\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApplebaum AJ, Roberts KE, Lynch K, et al. A qualitative exploration of the feasibility and acceptability of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers. Palliat Support Care. 2022;20(5):623\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLederberg MS, Holland JC. Supportive Psychotherapy in Cancer Care: An Essential Ingredient of All Therapy. In: Watson M, Kissane DW, editors. Handbook of Psychotherapy in Cancer Care. 1st ed. Wiley; 2011. pp. 1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/9780470975176.ch1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9780470975176.ch1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers CR. Client-centered therapy. In: \u003cem\u003ePsicoterapia Centrada En El Cliente: Pr\u0026aacute;ctica, Implicaciones y Teor\u0026iacute;a\u003c/em\u003e. 1966:459\u0026ndash;459. Accessed November 25, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/psa-94875\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/psa-94875\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBloch S. An introduction to the psychotherapies. Published online 1986. Accessed November 25, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://philpapers.org/rec/BLOAIT-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://philpapers.org/rec/BLOAIT-2\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLu K, Luo X, Chen PY. Sample Size Estimation for Repeated Measures Analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials with Missing Data. Int J Biostatistics. 2008;4(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2202/1557-4679.1098\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2202/1557-4679.1098\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoth AJ, Kornblith AB, Batel-Copel L, Peabody E, Scher HI, Holland JC. Rapid screening for psychologic distress in men with prostate carcinoma: A pilot study. Cancer. 1998;82(10):1904\u0026ndash;8. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980515)82:10%3C1904::AID-CNCR13%3E3.0.CO;2-X.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDevilly GJ, Borkovec TD. Psychometric properties of the credibility/expectancy questionnaire. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2000;31(2):73\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorkovec TD, Nau SD. Credibility of analogue therapy rationales. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1972;3(4):257\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReker GT. The Life Attitude Profile-Revised:(LAP-R). Ontario, Canada: Student Psychologists Press Peterborough; 2001.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeterman AH, Fitchett G, Brady MJ, Hernandez L, Cella D. Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy\u0026mdash;spiritual well-being scale (FACIT-Sp). ann behav med. 2002;24(1):49\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1207/s15324796abm2401_06\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15324796abm2401_06\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLambert S, Pallant JF, Girgis A. Rasch analysis of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale among caregivers of cancer survivors: implications for its use in psycho-oncology. Psycho-oncology. 2011;20(9):919\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/pon.1803\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pon.1803\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarran CJ, Miller BH, Kaufman JE, Donner E, Fogg L. Finding meaning through caregiving: Development of an instrument for family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s disease. J Clin Psychol. 1999;55(9):1107\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/(sici)1097-4679\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/(sici)1097-4679\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. )55:9%3C1107::aid-jclp8%3E3.0.co;2-v.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTomich PL, Helgeson VS. Is finding something good in the bad always good? Benefit finding among women with breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2004;23(1):16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUrcuyo KR, Boyers AE, Carver CS, Antoni MH. Finding benefit in breast cancer: Relations with personality, coping, and concurrent well-being. Psychol Health. 2005;20(2):175\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/08870440512331317634\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08870440512331317634\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiven CW, Given B, Stommel M, Collins C, King S, Franklin S. The caregiver reaction assessment (CRA) for caregivers to persons with chronic physical and mental impairments. Res Nurs Health. 1992;15(4):271\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/nur.4770150406\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/nur.4770150406\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuo W, Liu M, Yao Y, Zeng Y. Measurement Properties of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Older People Nurs. 2025;20(3):e70024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/opn.70024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/opn.70024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaracino R, Kolva E, Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W. Measuring social support in patients with advanced medical illnesses: An analysis of the Duke\u0026ndash;UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(5):1153\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarry LC, Kasl SV, Prigerson HG. Psychiatric disorders among bereaved persons: the role of perceived circumstances of death and preparedness for death. Am J geriatric psychiatry. 2002;10(4):447\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHebert RS, Prigerson HG, Schulz R, Arnold RM. Preparing Caregivers for the Death of a Loved One: A Theoretical Framework and Suggestions for Future Research. J Palliat Med. 2006;9(5):1164\u0026ndash;71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1164\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1089/jpm.2006.9.1164\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHauksdottir A, Steineck G, F\u0026uuml;rst CJ, Valdimarsdottir U. Long-term harm of low preparedness for a wife\u0026rsquo;s death from cancer\u0026mdash;a population-based study of widowers 4\u0026ndash;5 years after the loss. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(4):389\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLichtenthal WG, Viola M, Rogers M, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of EMPOWER for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients. Palliat Support Care. 2022;20(2):167\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts K, Holland J, Prigerson HG, et al. Development of the Bereavement Risk Inventory and Screening Questionnaire (BRISQ): item generation and expert panel feedback. Palliat Support Care. 2017;15(1):57\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eApplebaum A, Reisch S, Pessin H, Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W. The role of meaning-centered psychotherapy in advanced care planning. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGY. Volume 26. NJ USA: WILEY 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;5774; 2017. pp. 53\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrigerson HG, Horowitz MJ, Jacobs SC, et al. Prolonged grief disorder: Psychometric validation of criteria proposed for DSM-V and ICD-11. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000121.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolland JM, Thompson KL, Rozalski V, Lichtenthal WG. Bereavement-related regret trajectories among widowed older adults. Journals Gerontol Ser B: Psychol Sci Social Sci. 2014;69(1):40\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu GF, Lu K, Mogg R, Mallick M, Mehrotra DV. Should baseline be a covariate or dependent variable in analyses of change from baseline in clinical trials? Stat Med. 2009;28(20):2509\u0026ndash;30. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/sim.3639\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/sim.3639\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaird NM, Ware JH. Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics. 1982;38(4):963\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMallinckrod CH, Lane PW, Schnell D, Peng Y, Mancuso JP. Recommendations for the primary analysis of continuous endpoints in longitudinal clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2008;42(4):303\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/a0020761\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0020761\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTingley D, Yamamoto T, Hirose K, Keele L, Imai K. Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. J Stat Softw. Published online 2014.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eComputing RR. A language and environment for statistical computing. \u003cem\u003eVienna: R Core Team\u003c/em\u003e. Published online 2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:1\u0026ndash;67.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2010;25(1):51\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIbrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review. TEST. 2009;18(1):1\u0026ndash;43. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11749-009-0138-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11749-009-0138-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle RJ, D\u0026rsquo;Agostino R, Cohen ML, et al. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1355\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1056/NEJMsr1203730\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1056/NEJMsr1203730\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"trials","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trls","sideBox":"Learn more about [Trials](http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13063","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/trls","title":"Trials","twitterHandle":"MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Cancer caregiver, caregiver support, Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers, meaning, purpose, spiritual wellbeing, existential distress, advanced cancer, advance care planning, bereavement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7963562/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7963562/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCaregivers of patients with advanced cancer shoulder immense responsibilities as they care for patients, including symptom and medication management, providing emotional support, and navigating healthcare treatment and decision-making. Due to the heavy toll of these responsibilities, caregivers are at high risk for profound mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A key driver of this heightened risk for psychopathology in caregivers is existential distress, manifesting as a loss of meaning and purpose, decreased spiritual well-being, and hopelessness. Historically, psychosocial interventions targeting distress in cancer caregivers have neglected to address existential distress. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers, a 7-session structured intervention, was developed to address this gap. In a pilot randomized controlled trial, the approach led to enhancements in personal meaning, benefit finding, and spiritual well-being. Here, we present a large, multi-site trial that aims to definitively examine the efficacy of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers in an adequately powered study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethod\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis randomized controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers versus Supportive Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers on primary (personal meaning and spiritual well-being) and secondary (anxiety, depression, sense of meaning in caregiving, benefit finding, caregiver burden, social support) outcomes at baseline, post-treatment, and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. It will also evaluate the role of sense of meaning in life as a mediator of secondary outcomes, as well as the impact of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers on pre-and post-loss bereavement outcomes. Two hundred caregivers of patients with advanced (stage III/IV) solid tumor cancers from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the community will be enrolled.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDiscussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers has the potential to help alleviate existential suffering in caregivers as they manage the multifaceted demands of caring for patients with advanced cancer. This trial seeks to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention in a more robust and representative trial of cancer caregivers, and extends prior research to explore mediators of improvement and the impact of the intervention on pre- and post-loss bereavement outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTrial registration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06307535, registered on 03/05/2024\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Cancer Caregivers Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-04 12:40:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7963562/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2026-02-02T10:28:24+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-02T10:23:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-17T06:26:16+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Trials","date":"2025-11-13T15:50:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revision","date":"2025-11-13T09:36:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"trials","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trls","sideBox":"Learn more about [Trials](http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13063","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/trls","title":"Trials","twitterHandle":"MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ae02f2cb-9632-4215-be60-408e49b05fbc","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 4th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-23T16:12:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7963562","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09621-7","journal":{"identity":"trials","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Trials"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-21 15:59:37","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 21st, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-04 12:40:51","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13063-026-09621-7","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09621-7","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7963562","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7963562","identity":"rs-7963562","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}