This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Formative Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions (3272) Depression and Mood Disorders; Suicide Prevention (1703) mHealth for Symptom and Disease Monitoring, Chronic Disease Management (1745) Engagement with and Adherence to Digital Health Interventions, Law of Attrition (646) Anxiety and Stress Disorders (1336) Emotional, Social, Psychological Support for Cancer (252) Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) (412) Breast Cancer (293)

Published on in Vol 9 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/77636, first published .
Feasibility and Acceptability of a Positive Psychological Intervention for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Pre-Post Pilot Study

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Positive Psychological Intervention for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Pre-Post Pilot Study

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Positive Psychological Intervention for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Pre-Post Pilot Study

Authors of this article:

Claire C Conley1 Author Orcid Image ;   Elizabeth L Addington2 Author Orcid Image ;   Mikaela Velazquez-Sosa1 Author Orcid Image ;   Brenna Mossman1 Author Orcid Image ;   Lesley Glenn3 Author Orcid Image ;   Shontè Drakeford4 Author Orcid Image ;   Roxana Guerra5 ;   Claudine Isaacs1 Author Orcid Image ;   Ami Chitalia6 Author Orcid Image ;   Christopher Gallagher6 Author Orcid Image ;   Suzanne C O'Neill1 Author Orcid Image ;   Judith T Moskowitz2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (3) Metrics

    1Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, 2115 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, United States

    2Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States

    3Patient Author, Project Life MBC, Calabasas, CA, United States

    4Patient Author, Upper Marlboro, MD, United States

    5Patient Author, Washington, DC, United States

    6MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, United States

    Corresponding Author:

    Claire C Conley, PhD


    Background: Depression and anxiety are prevalent among patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but there are few evidence-based psychological interventions specifically designed for this population.

    Objective: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical impact of a multicomponent positive psychological intervention, enhanced with an ecological momentary intervention for symptom management, for patients with MBC.

    Methods: We recruited patients with MBC from a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Participants completed 5 weekly virtual individual sessions with a study counselor focused on positive emotion regulation skills. Participants also reported physical and psychological symptoms daily between sessions via SMS text messaging. Clinically elevated symptoms triggered a personalized coaching SMS text message tailored to the symptoms reported and the skills learned that week. Primary outcomes were intervention feasibility and acceptability. We also examined pre- to postintervention changes in depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use. Finally, a subset of participants completed qualitative exit interviews focusing on their experience in the study; interview data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis.

    Results: We approached 20 patients with MBC, established contact with 15 (75%), received consent from 10 (67%), and retained 9 (90%) patients through the end of the study. Participants were 55 (SD 14.4, range 35-75) years old on average and identified as non-Hispanic White (5/10, 50%), non-Hispanic Black (4/10, 40%), or Latina (1/10, 10%). Participants attended 92% (46/50) of intervention sessions (mean 50, SD 9, range 36‐71 min). On average, they completed 85% (SD 18%, range 46%-100%) of daily symptom assessments and received 23 (SD 5, range 13‐31) coaching messages. Participants reported high perceived intervention feasibility (mean 4.81/5, SD 0.44), acceptability (mean 4.78/5, SD 0.33), and appropriateness for patients with MBC (mean 4.83/5, SD 0.35), above our a priori cutoff of ≥4. All 9 participants (n=9, 100%) recommended the intervention for other patients with MBC. We observed pre- to postintervention decreases in depression (d=−0.32) and anxiety (d=−0.27) and increases in positive affect (d=0.30) and positive emotion regulation skill use (d=0.99). Rapid qualitative analysis results demonstrate participants’ positive experiences with the intervention, as well as suggestions for improvement.

    Conclusions: This pilot study supports the feasibility of enrolling and retaining racially and ethnically diverse patients with MBC to this trial, the acceptability of the positive psychological intervention enhanced with ecological momentary intervention, and preliminary intervention impacts on depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use. A large-scale randomized controlled trial is needed to assess intervention efficacy for outcomes of interest.

    JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e77636

    doi:10.2196/77636

    Keywords

    advanced cancer; depression; anxiety; positive psychology; ecological momentary intervention 


    Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body; it is typically considered to be treatable, but incurable [1]. In the past decade, novel treatment approaches have resulted in significantly increased survival times following MBC diagnosis [2-4]. For this reason, the MBC population is anticipated to increase in the coming years; by 2030, an estimated 246,000 people in the United States will be living with MBC (a 59% increase from 2017) [5,6].

    Living with MBC can affect psychological functioning. An estimated 20% to 52% of patients with MBC report clinically significant depression, and 36% to 60% report clinically significant anxiety [7-12]. However, most interventions to improve depression and anxiety in patients with breast cancer are designed for those with early-stage disease. The needs of patients with MBC are different from those with early-stage breast cancer [13], and resources that are not specific to MBC do not adequately meet the needs of this population [14]. Given their unique experiences, interventions addressing depression and anxiety, specifically for patients with MBC, are urgently needed.

    There are few evidence-based interventions targeting depression and anxiety for patients with MBC. A 2023 systematic review identified 13 studies testing supportive care interventions designed to improve quality of life and symptom experience among patients with MBC [15]. Of the 7 studies that examined depression or anxiety as an outcome, only 2 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in these symptoms [16,17]. Thus, further research is needed to optimize interventions targeting depression and anxiety specifically for patients with MBC through the integration of novel intervention targets and methods.

    Incorporating a focus on positive affect may be one way of optimizing psychological interventions for patients with MBC. Positive affect refers to pleasant feelings and moods, such as peace and joy [18]. Positive affect is not the same as absence of negative affect, as individuals can experience both positive and negative affect at the same time, and a high level of one does not necessitate a low level of the other [19,20]. Our prior work highlights the importance of positive affect among those with MBC and demonstrated that positive affect significantly predicted quality of life, above and beyond the effects of sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and physical symptoms [21].

    Positive psychological interventions (PPIs) are a promising approach to reduce depression and anxiety and increase positive affect among patients with MBC. PPIs focus on building practical skills designed to improve well-being [22,23]. Some PPIs focus on a single skill (eg, gratitude), while others teach several skills. In a prior pilot of a PPI among those with MBC, we demonstrated a reduction in depression but no improvement in positive affect [24]. Thus, prior pilot data suggested a need for further adaptations to the PPI to boost intervention effects on positive affect.

    One potential explanation for these findings is the lack of PPI skill use during moments of higher negative affect when they are most needed. Nudge Theory suggests that behavior is susceptible to contextual factors (ie, how information is presented or structured) [25-28]. Thus, using nudges to influence choices is a potential strategy for behavior change [29]. Responsive behavioral nudges, triggered by participants’ own symptom thresholds, engage patients when they are most receptive to help [30]. Compared to nudges that are not responsive (ie, daily reminders), responsive nudges can prevent habituation (ie, decreased response to an intervention over repeated exposures) [31]. Responsive interventions have been shown to improve positive affect in other populations and settings [32-34]. Thus, the previously observed null effects of the PPI on positive affect among patients with MBC might be addressed through responsive behavioral nudges.

    In adapting the PPI in line with Nudge Theory, we incorporated an ecological momentary intervention (EMI). EMI delivers dynamic, individually tailored treatments to patients in real time and in natural settings [31,35]. EMI has several benefits over traditional “one-size-fits-all” interventions: maintaining participant engagement, sustaining continued behavior change for longer durations, and ultimately achieving greater intervention effects [36]. However, EMI has rarely been used in cancer survivorship research [37]. To our knowledge, there are no studies examining EMI in the context of advanced cancer.

    To address these research gaps, we conducted a single-arm pilot study examining the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent PPI—enhanced with an EMI for symptom management—for patients with MBC. The aims of this study were 2-fold: (1) to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention for patients with MBC and (2) to examine pre- to postintervention changes in depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use.


    Study Design

    Following best practices for the development of behavioral interventions [38], we conducted a single-arm pilot study (see Checklist 1 for CONSORT [Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials] checklist for reporting a pilot or feasibility trial [39]). Although this design does not allow us to assess intervention efficacy, we are able to assess intervention feasibility, acceptability, and clinical impact on outcomes of interest—the primary goals of this project. This research was designed and conducted with the active input of patient advocate collaborators to ensure the methodology was informed by the perspectives of individuals living with MBC. Qualitative data collection and analyses align with the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research; see Checklist 2) [40].

    Participants and Procedures

    Eligible participants were those diagnosed with MBC, assigned female at birth, aged ≥18 years, and able to communicate verbally in English. Participants were also required to have a working telephone capable of receiving SMS text messages and accessing the internet to facilitate engagement with the EMI. We excluded individuals with a life expectancy of <6 months as assessed by their treating breast oncologist before study enrollment [41].

    The target sample size for this feasibility study was 10 participants and was determined based on recommendations for pilot and feasibility studies in the palliative care setting [42]. Participants were recruited from a previous study cohort. Between January 2023 and April 2024, we conducted an observational study of quality of life among patients being treated for MBC at 5 medical oncology clinics in the mid-Atlantic region (N=125) [21]. A subset of participants (96/125, 77%) had agreed to be contacted for future studies. From this group, we selected individuals who had reported elevated levels of depression or anxiety (32/96, 33%), defined as a rating of 7 or higher on a 0 to 10 visual analog scale at any point throughout the study [43]. A member of the research team confirmed patients’ vital status and eligibility with their treating oncologist; 27 (27/32, 84%) patients were alive, and we received oncologist permission to contact 22 (22/27, 81%) patients. Oncologists asked us not to contact 5 patients who had transferred care outside our health care system and were now under the care of another oncologist. Recruitment stopped upon achieving our target sample size of 10 consented participants.

    From October to November 2024, a member of the research team contacted potential participants via telephone, introduced the study, and confirmed patient eligibility and interest. Following informed consent, participants completed a baseline (T0) survey assessing sociodemographic characteristics, depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use. On completion of the baseline survey, participants were scheduled for intervention sessions (see Intervention section below). Immediately post intervention (ie, after the fifth and final intervention session), participants completed a follow-up (T1) survey assessing primary and secondary outcomes (see Measures section below). Follow-up assessments took place between November and December 2024.

    Finally, all participants were given the opportunity to complete an optional exit interview. A female research assistant with prior training and experience in qualitative interviewing (MVS) conducted the semistructured exit interviews. The interviewer did not have a relationship with the interviewees before the exit interview. At the start of the interview, the interviewer introduced herself and reminded participants of the purpose for the exit interview (ie, to obtain feedback on the PPI). In terms of positionality [44,45], the interviewer had foundational knowledge of MBC but not firsthand experience. She was also younger than the interview participants and from a different geographic region of the United States. These characteristics may introduce bias by affecting the interviewer’s application of probing questions. Potential bias was managed through postinterview debriefing with the principal investigator (CCC).

    Semistructured qualitative interviews explored participants’ experiences with the intervention and suggestions for improvement (see Multimedia Appendix 1 for the interview guide). Interviewees were instructed to find a quiet, private location, without nonparticipants, for the duration of the interview. Interviews were conducted via telephone or video call (as preferred by the participant) and lasted 31 (SD 12, range 13-50) minutes on average. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviewer took field notes during the interviews. As participants did not consent to be recontacted, we did not conduct repeat interviews, return transcripts to participants for review, or have participants provide feedback on the findings.

    Intervention

    Positive Emotion Skills Training (POET) is a PPI designed to bolster participants’ ability to cope with major life stressors by increasing their experiences of positive affect [46]. Participants learned 8 evidence-based skills: noticing positive events, capitalizing (ie, maximizing positive experiences), gratitude, mindfulness, positive reappraisal, identifying personal strengths, creating attainable goals, and altruism and acts of kindness. POET includes 5 weekly individual sessions with a facilitator. In this study, sessions took place virtually (ie, via phone, 27/46, 59%, or video conference, 19/46, 41%, as preferred by the participant). Sessions lasted 50 (SD 9, range 36-71) minutes on average. Each session included (1) a brief check-in, (2) home practice review, (3) didactic portion in which the facilitator introduces the skills for that session, (4) interactive practice of the skills, and (5) discussion of home practice for the next week. Didactic content and home practice worksheets were provided as a paper intervention booklet; participants were encouraged to follow along with written content during the session and to document their home practice by writing in the booklet between sessions.

    Participants also completed daily symptom reporting between POET sessions. Specifically, participants reported psychological symptoms (eg, depression, anxiety), physical symptoms (eg, pain, fatigue, gastrointestinal distress, nausea, reduced appetite, reduced libido), and positive experiences (eg, social connectedness, peace, joy) on a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 10. Daily symptom reporting surveys were delivered via SMS text messages once per day, between 5 PM and 11 PM; to maximize the likelihood of survey completion, the exact time of survey delivery was individualized and based on participant preference.

    Our intervention also incorporated an EMI, which was based on participants’ responses to the daily symptom monitoring surveys. Specifically, high levels of symptoms on daily symptom monitoring surveys (scores≥7) triggered a next-day coaching message delivered by SMS text messages. Coaching messages were developed by adapting language from the existing intervention worksheets. Our multidisciplinary study team and patient advocates also provided input on the coaching messages to ensure their relevance to individuals living with MBC. The goal of the coaching messages was to encourage the use of positive emotion regulation skill(s) learned in POET sessions. Thus, coaching messages were specific to both the symptom(s) reported and the skill(s) that the participant learned in their most recent POET session. The coaching message was delivered the morning following the participant’s evening symptom reporting survey, at approximately 10 AM.

    Measures

    Feasibility and Acceptability

    At T1, participants completed the Feasibility of Intervention Measure, Acceptability of Intervention Measure, and Intervention Appropriateness Measure [47]. Each measure includes 4 items, which are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “completely disagree” (1) to “completely agree” (5) and averaged to create scale scores ranging from 1 to 5 (higher=greater). Scores ≥4 indicate adequate levels of intervention feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness.

    In addition, participants provided feedback on the number of sessions in the POET intervention (too few, too many, or just right), the length of each POET session (too short, too long, or just right), preferred format for the POET intervention (eg, individual, group, self-guided website, in-person, virtual), and whether they would recommend the POET intervention for other people with MBC (yes or no).

    Depression

    Participants completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression 4-item short form at T0 and T1 [48,49]. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5), summed, and converted to T-scores, which enable comparison to the general population (mean 50, SD 10).

    Anxiety

    Participants completed the PROMIS Anxiety 4-item short form at T0 and T1 [48,50]. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (5), summed, and converted to T-scores, which enable comparison to the general population (mean 50, SD 10).

    Positive Affect

    Participants completed the positive affect subscale of the Modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) at T0 and T1 [51]. In total, 10 items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “never” (0) to “most of the time” (4), indicating the extent to which emotions have been experienced within the last 24 hours. Items are averaged to create a subscale score ranging from 0 to 4 (higher=more).

    Positive Emotion Regulation Skill Use

    As in prior work, we assessed participants’ use of the positive emotion regulation skills taught in the POET intervention in the last week [24]. Participants respond to 11 items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “definitely false” (1) to “definitely true” (5). Item scores are averaged to create a total score ranging from 1 to 5 (higher =greater).

    Demographic Characteristics

    At T0, participants self-reported their age, sex assigned at birth, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, education, employment status, annual household income, and insurance status.

    Clinical Characteristics

    Time since MBC diagnosis and disease subtype were abstracted from the electronic medical record.

    Statistical Analysis

    Quantitative

    Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and to examine measures of intervention feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. Student t tests were used to examine changes in depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use from T0 to T1. Analyses were conducted in SPSS (version 28; IBM Corp). All tests were 2-tailed, and significance was specified as P<.05. Cases with missing outcome data were deleted listwise.

    Qualitative

    Qualitative analysis was guided by a descriptive phenomenological approach, wherein the researchers sought to understand the unique lived experience of individuals by exploring the meaning of a phenomenon [52]. Exit interview transcripts were analyzed by 2 members of the study team (CCC, MVS) through a rapid qualitative analysis (RQA) procedure [53]. Main topics (“domains”) were drawn from the interview guide, and a summary template was developed (see Multimedia Appendix 2 for the RQA template). Team members used the template to summarize interview transcripts. Summary templates were compiled into a single matrix reflecting the depth and breadth of information for each domain [54]. Although our sample size for qualitative exit interviews was limited to participants in the pilot intervention, we did obtain data saturation with 9 completed exit interviews [55].

    Ethical Considerations

    All study procedures were reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at Georgetown University (IRB #00008193). Study procedures ensured that participants’ privacy and confidentiality were maintained. Patients provided written informed consent via an electronic informed consent form. Participants received a US $25 gift card on completion of each survey. Participants received a US $50 gift card on interview completion.


    Descriptive and Preliminary Analyses

    We approached 20 patients with MBC and established contact with 15 (15/20, 75%) patients; 10 (10/15, 67%) patients provided consent (Figure 1). One participant withdrew due to prolonged hospitalization, and 9 (9/10, 90%) were retained through the study.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Study flowchart.

    Table 1 provides a full description of the sample. All participants self-identified as cisgender heterosexual women. The average participant age was 55 (SD 14, range 35‐85) years. The 10 participants identified as non-Hispanic White (n=5, 50%), non-Hispanic Black (n=4, 40%), or Latina (n=1, 10%). Most of the participants had a college degree or greater (n=9, 90%), were not working (n=5, 50%), had an annual household income greater than US $100,000 (n=5, 50%), and had private health insurance (n=9, 90%). The median time since MBC diagnosis was 3.7 years, but this ranged widely from a minimum of 1.5 years to a maximum of 18.1 years. Most participants (n=7, 70%) had hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer.

    Table 1. Participant demographic and clinical characteristics (N=10).
    CharacteristicsValues
    Demographic characteristics
    Age (years), mean (SD)55.2 (14.4)
    Race and ethnicity, n (%)
    Non-Hispanic White5 (50)
    Non-Hispanic Black4 (40)
    Latina1 (10)
    Education, n (%)
    High school degree or equivalent1 (10)
    College degree6 (60)
    Postgraduate degree3 (30)
    Employment status, n (%)
    Working full time1 (20)
    Working part time3 (30)
    Retired4 (40)
    Unable to work1 (10)
    Annual household income, n (%)
    <US $100,0004 (40)
    ≥US $100,0005 (50)
    Prefer not to answer1 (10)
    Health insurance typea, n (%)
    Private8 (80)
    Public (eg, Medicare, Medicaid)4 (40)
    Military or veterans health care1 (10)
    Clinical characteristics
    Years since MBCb diagnosis, median (range)3.7 (1.5‐18.1)
    Breast cancer subtype, n (%)
    HRc positive and HER2d positive2 (20)
    HR positive and HER2 negative7 (70)
    Triple negative1 (10)

    aAs participants could select more than one, does not sum to 100%.

    bMBC: metastatic breast cancer.

    cHR: hormone receptor.

    dHER2: Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2.

    At baseline, participants demonstrated more depression (mean 55.4, SD 8.2) and anxiety (mean 57.1, SD 9.0) than the general population (mean 50.0, SD 10). These scores are indicative of mild depression and anxiety [56].

    Feasibility and Acceptability

    Participants attended 92% (46/50) of intervention sessions; specifically, 9 participants attended all 5 intervention sessions, and 1 participant attended only 1 intervention session before dropping out. Intervention sessions lasted 50 (SD 9, range 36-71) minutes on average.

    For participants who were retained for the duration of the intervention, the average length of the intervention was 29 (SD 2, range 28‐34) days. A total of 8 participants completed the 5 weekly intervention sessions in exactly 5 weeks, and 1 participant took an additional week after rescheduling due to competing demands. As symptom assessments were completed daily over the course of the intervention period, the possible number of daily symptom assessments ranged from 28 to 34, depending on the participant. Completion of daily symptom assessments ranged widely, from 46% (13/28) to 100% (28/28). On average, participants completed 85% (SD 18%) of daily symptom assessments. The EMI was triggered for 93% (204/220) of daily symptom assessments. Participants received an average of 23 (SD 5, range 13‐31) coaching messages, corresponding to 4‐5 coaching messages per week in the intervention.

    Participants reported high perceived intervention feasibility (mean 4.81, SD 0.44), acceptability (mean 4.78, SD 0.33), and appropriateness for patients with MBC (mean 4.83, SD 0.35). The average scores on all measures were above our a priori cutoff of ≥4, indicating adequate intervention feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. No harms or unintended intervention effects were identified.

    Most of the 9 participants (n=6, 67%) felt that the number of POET sessions was “just right,” while the remainder (n=3, 33%) felt that there were “too few” sessions. The length of the sessions was also rated by most as “just right” (n=7, 78%), with a few participants feeling the sessions were “too short” (n=1, 11%) or “too long” (n=1, 11%). In terms of intervention format, most participants (n=8, 89%) preferred individual meetings with the study counselor, either via telephone (n=5, 56%) or video call (n=4, 44%). Fewer participants (n=2, 22%) were interested in an in-person intervention. All participants (n=9, 100%) recommended the intervention for other patients with MBC.

    Depression, Anxiety, Positive Affect, and Positive Emotion Regulation Skill Use

    The average time between T0 and T1 was 43.6 (SD 8.7) days. Although there were no statistically significant changes in depression, anxiety, or positive affect from T0 to T1 (P values ≥.37; Table 2), we did observe small-to-moderate pre- to postintervention decreases in depression (d=−0.32) and anxiety (d=−0.27) and increases in positive affect (d=0.30). This corresponded to clinically significant reductions in depression and anxiety for 55% (5/9) and 33% (3/9) of participants, respectively [57]. We also observed a statistically significant increase in positive emotion regulation skill use (t8=2.95; P=.02), corresponding to a large effect size (d=0.99).

    Table 2. Pre- to postintervention changes in depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use (N=9).
    ConstructT0, mean (SD)T1, mean (SD)t test (df)P valued95% CI
    PROMISa depression55.33 (8.73)51.99 (7.86)–0.95 (8).37–0.32–0.98 to 0.37
    PROMIS anxiety57.23 (9.53)53.90 (8.48)–0.81 (8).44–0.27–0.93 to 0.40
    mDESb positive affect2.04 (1.26)2.31 (1.06)0.91 (8).390.30–0.38 to 0.97
    Positive emotion regulation skill use3.92 (0.86)4.28 (0.67)2.95 (8).020.990.16 to 1.77

    aPROMIS: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.

    bmDES: Modified Differential Emotions Scale.

    RQA Results

    Table 3 includes representative quotes from RQA, highlighting the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention for people with MBC. All interviewees had positive experiences in the study, describing the POET program as useful, meaningful, or therapeutic. The weekly sessions helped many participants feel engaged or accountable; some participants expressed interest in adding additional sessions or having sessions every other week (to allow more time to practice POET skills). Interviewees also provided suggestions for improving the daily symptom reporting, including adding more emotions and open-ended questions to provide clarifications on their answers.

    Table 3. Representative quotes from rapid qualitative analysis highlighting intervention feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness.
    ParticipantIllustrative quote
    No. 4, living with MBCa for 4 years“People use [these skills] every day. They just don’t know how to categorize them in a way you put on paper.”
    No. 5, living with MBC for 1.5 years“And I loved the program, to be honest, I felt like it’s a lot of stuff that a lot of people need... especially with cancer, you can become, ‘Woe is me,’ kind of quick. And so, it’s a good way to keep it centered on the good in your life. And it’s okay to have those bad days. But to have something to bring you back, I liked that a lot.”
    No. 7, living with MBC for 1.5 years“If [a patient with MBC] were on the fence, that they should pursue the program, I would also say just go into it with an open mind... that the course content, that is actually beneficial.”
    No. 8, living with MBC for 3 years“Mindfulness is one of those skills that helped me stop and realize that it’s okay to put myself into the equation as well and focus on my own, which is something I often tend to ignore.”
    No. 9, living with MBC for 18 years“I’m grateful for the opportunity that someone kind of feels like maybe we do need something different than the pink ribbon.”
    No. 10, living with MBC for 3 years“[The coaching message] was cool. It cheered you up, like, ‘Oh, you did this. Now, why don’t you focus on this?’ And it gives you a guide during the day on what to do instead of just being around your daily life and events and house chores and stuff like that. So that was good.”

    aMBC: metastatic breast cancer.

    Most interviewees felt that all the skills covered in the POET program were helpful, applicable, or important. However, different participants preferred different skills; several individuals expressed interest in a tailored program, where they could “pick and choose” the skills that felt most important and relevant to them. Relatedly, many participants noted that they were already familiar with and practiced some of these skills. For some, the POET program was a helpful reminder of their skills, while others felt it was redundant to cover this material.

    Interviewees generally liked the EMI component of the intervention and appreciated the structure that the coaching messages provided, reminding them to use the skills that they had learned. Some interviewees also reflected that it helped them to stay engaged in the POET program, rather than going a whole week between contacts. Interviewees felt that the frequency of the coaching messages was appropriate. However, 1 participant suggested that it would be nice to receive the coaching message daily, even if they did not complete the daily symptom assessment the day prior.

    Finally, interviewees were asked about alternative delivery methods and formats for the POET program. While most participants were interested in the option of a self-paced web-based program, they still wanted to have weekly meetings with a facilitator. One participant suggested a “buddy program” between participants through the web-based platform. Regarding group sessions, interviewees often expressed interest with caution because of concerns about privacy and confidentiality. One participant noted that it would be important for group sessions to be structured and “different from a support group.”


    Principal Findings

    In this single-arm pilot study, we demonstrated that a multicomponent PPI incorporating EMI is feasible and acceptable among patients with MBC. Pilot study participants rated the POET intervention as highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate for patients with MBC. High rates of recruitment and retention also demonstrate the feasibility of this trial. Preliminary data also suggest that the POET intervention may impact key outcomes of depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use. However, these findings are limited by the study design, including the small sample and lack of a control group, and must be replicated in a fully powered, randomized trial. Altogether, the results of this pilot study provide support for further examination of PPIs in the context of MBC.

    Meta-analytic data demonstrate that PPIs have robust effects on the key MBC outcomes identified in our prior work: depression, anxiety, and positive affect [58]. However, in the oncology setting, PPIs have primarily been tested among patients with early-stage cancer [59-61]. A meta-analysis conducted by Casellas-Grau et al [59] identified 16 studies examining PPIs for patients with breast cancer, which they grouped into 5 categories: mindfulness-based approaches, expression of positive emotions, spiritual interventions, hope therapy, and meaning-making interventions. More than half of the included studies recruited only individuals with early-stage cancer; only 1 study focused on MBC specifically [62]. While additional trials have been published since this review was completed, to our knowledge, the initial pilot of POET is the only other study testing a PPI specifically for patients with MBC [24]. This study thus extends prior research in 2 key ways. First, we examine the feasibility and acceptability of a PPI among women with MBC, who have been excluded from previous studies in this space. Second, our PPI was multicomponent and touched on several of the categories identified in the meta-analysis, including mindfulness, expression of positive emotions, hope, and meaning-making. By integrating multiple positive psychological skills, POET may be more appealing to potential participants and could have more robust effects on our outcomes of interest than single-component PPIs.

    Results also highlight the potential added benefit of EMI on positive affect for patients with MBC. Despite specifically being designed to increase positive affect, an earlier version of the POET intervention did not demonstrate effects on positive affect among patients with MBC [24], indicating the need for adaptations. Although this small pilot study cannot provide evidence of intervention efficacy, we did observe pre- to postintervention increases in positive affect, possibly due to our consideration of Nudge Theory and the resulting inclusion of EMI. Nudges such as those included in this study can interrupt unwanted behaviors or experiences and prompt positive behavior change. For example, nudge-based interventions have successfully been used to disrupt sedentary time [63,64] and social media use [65]. In the context of PPIs, nudges represent an opportunity to interrupt negative emotions [66], prompt use of positive emotion skills [67], and reduce emotional spillover (when negative emotions experienced in one period continue into a later period) [68-70]. Thus, the responsive behavioral nudges that we incorporated in this intervention may have boosted the effects of POET on positive affect through these mechanisms.

    Notably, Salsman et al [71] conducted a meta-analysis examining intervention effects on positive affect among cancer survivors and identified only 3 studies focusing on advanced cancer. Disappointingly, intervention effects on positive affect were stronger when trials focused on individuals with early-stage cancer (average effect size: g=0.42), compared to trials enrolling patients with advanced cancer (average effect size: g=−0.03). Salsman et al [71] noted that this may be due to differences in affective activation between individuals with early-stage and advanced disease. In other words, patients with advanced disease may tend to experience “low activation” positive affect (ie, peace, tranquility, and contentment), while individuals with early-stage disease may tend to experience “high activation” (ie, excitement). Our measure of positive affect (the mDES) included both low-activation and high-activation emotions. Although this small pilot study was not powered to examine changes in individual mDES items, future research should examine the impact of POET on low- versus high-activation emotions among women with MBC.

    The results of this small pilot study also indicate the potential for the POET intervention to improve anxiety among patients with MBC. This is consistent with meta-analytic data demonstrating that PPIs ameliorate anxiety among medically ill patients [72]. However, specifically among people with cancer, 1 meta-analysis demonstrated high heterogeneity across studies in PPIs’ effects on anxiety, potentially resulting in less reliable effect size estimates [73]. The observed high heterogeneity in study findings could be due to differences in study populations, interventions, or outcome measurements. Thus, attention to these details through a rigorous, systematic program of research is needed to generate reliable estimates of the impact of PPIs on anxiety among women with MBC.

    The generalizability of these findings is limited by the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the sample. While we were able to achieve diversity in terms of participant race and ethnicity, nearly all participants in this pilot study were highly educated and of high socioeconomic status. Prior literature has suggested that socioeconomic factors, such as education level, can moderate the effects of PPIs, particularly for behavioral outcomes (eg, antidepressant use) [74]. Future studies including larger, more socioeconomically diverse samples are needed to support the generalizability of these findings to the larger population of women with MBC. Recruiting outside of National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers may be one strategy to increase participant diversity, as patients presenting for care at these institutions are more likely to be non-Hispanic White, privately insured, and with high socioeconomic status [75]. Furthermore, all participants in this pilot study were able to communicate verbally in English. Prior research suggests that individuals with limited English proficiency have more barriers in accessing cancer care [76] and worse breast cancer outcomes than their English-speaking counterparts [77]. For example, Spanish-speaking Latina immigrant breast cancer survivors experience worse quality of life and emotional well-being than English-speaking survivors [78]. Expanding this PPI beyond English-speaking participants is a necessary next step to improve equity in psycho-oncology research. In terms of clinical characteristics, this study included only participants who reported elevated depression or anxiety in a prior study. While elevated depression and anxiety are common among patients with MBC [7-12], the present sample may not represent the broader MBC population, including those without elevated distress. It is possible that the POET intervention would be less feasible, acceptable, and impactful among patients with MBC and without elevated depression or anxiety.

     Qualitative feedback from intervention participants can be used to guide future iterations of the POET program. Specifically, based on participant feedback, we will revise the daily symptom reporting procedure to include more emotions and open-ended questions. In addition, we are exploring the possibility of tailoring the POET program to individual participants based on their current affective experiences, prior experience with POET skills, or current use of the POET skills. Tailored or adaptive interventions that meet the specific needs and preferences of individual patients may be more acceptable, ultimately increasing participants’ engagement with and benefit from the intervention [31,79]. However, additional research would be needed to identify the decision points at which the POET intervention is tailored and test the effectiveness of the tailored intervention versus standard intervention delivery [80].

    Strengths and Limitations

    This pilot study has several strengths. Patients with metastatic cancer have unique psychosocial needs [13,14], yet are underrepresented in research [81,82]. Furthermore, this is among the first studies examining a PPI for patients with MBC; despite the importance of positive experiences for this patient population, prior intervention trials do not focus on increasing positive affect [15,83,84]. Our incorporation of EMI is also a strength, as it may boost intervention results and increase engagement. We were able to recruit and retain a racially and ethnically diverse group of study participants, supporting the feasibility of doing so in a future, larger trial. In addition, participants had been living with MBC for varying lengths of time, providing unique perspectives on the disease and related psychosocial needs. We used robust and well-validated outcome measures with established cutoffs for clinically significant change, enabling us to explore the clinical impact of the POET intervention. Finally, the study was designed in collaboration with patient advocates, ensuring relevance to patients’ lived experiences.

    Nonetheless, the results must be interpreted in light of limitations. Most notably, this was a small, single-arm pilot study. While this design is appropriate for our primary goal of assessing intervention feasibility and acceptability [38], we are unable to determine whether improvements in our outcomes of interest are due to the intervention or other factors. A fully powered randomized clinical trial with long-term follow-up is needed to understand the effect of the POET intervention on depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use among patients with MBC. Moreover, from these pilot findings, we are unable to disentangle the relative effects of the POET sessions and the integrated EMI. A future dismantling study or factorial study would be needed to understand the individual and combined effects of different intervention components [85]. Our outcome measures were self-reported, which may introduce bias due to demand characteristics [86]. Furthermore, in an effort to minimize participant burden, we elected to use very brief measures of depression and anxiety; while they have strong psychometric properties, they may be less sensitive to change than longer versions [87]. Future studies might incorporate longer self-report measures or objective measures to further triangulate intervention effects. Participants in this pilot study were recruited from a prior trial, which included remote symptom reporting via ecological momentary assessment and required participants to own a phone capable of receiving SMS text messages and accessing the internet [21]. This may have resulted in a more “tech-savvy” and less representative sample, and limits generalizability. Only individuals with elevated depression or anxiety were selected, further narrowing the sample and limiting applicability to the broader MBC population. Furthermore, we only contacted individuals who had previously agreed to be contacted for future studies, which may have introduced self-selection bias (ie, individuals who agreed to be contacted for future studies may be more willing to participate). Recruitment rates might be lower among individuals who had not previously expressed interest in participating in research. Most participants in this study were highly educated and of high socioeconomic status, and all were able to communicate verbally in English and were receiving care at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Thus, results may not generalize to the broader, socioeconomically and linguistically diverse population of people with MBC and those receiving care in community oncology settings [88,89]. Finally, our sample was relatively homogenous in terms of MBC subtype, with 70% having hormone receptor–positive Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–negative disease. This has significant implications for participants’ lived experience of MBC, including treatment regimen (ie, hormone therapy rather than chemotherapy), time toxicity, and quality of life. Relatedly, none of our participants were within a year of their MBC diagnosis and may therefore be in a different stage of adjustment to their disease. The effect of PPIs may vary for individuals closer to diagnosis and undergoing different types of treatments for MBC. Future studies with more clinically diverse samples are needed to understand if the intervention is more or less impactful for certain cohorts.

    Conclusions

    This pilot study demonstrates the promise of the POET program for patients with MBC. Specifically, the results support the feasibility of enrolling and retaining racially and ethnically diverse patients with MBC to this trial, the acceptability of the PPI enhanced with EMI, and potential intervention impacts on depression, anxiety, positive affect, and positive emotion regulation skill use. A large-scale randomized controlled trial is needed to assess intervention efficacy for outcomes of interest.

    Acknowledgments

    This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (K08 CA270402, principal investigator [PI]: CCC; T32CA261787, PI: SCO, Adams-Campbell, Schwartz; P30 CA051008, PI: Weiner). The content presented here is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

    Data Availability

    Deidentified quantitative data are publicly available on the Open Science Framework [90]. Sociodemographic data are omitted for privacy reasons and can be requested from the corresponding author (CCC). The qualitative datasets are not publicly available, as qualitative interview data cannot be completely anonymized, even when aliases are used to replace names. Qualitative data are available from the corresponding author (CCC) on reasonable request.

    Authors' Contributions

    All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and data analysis were performed by CCC and MVS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CCC. All authors commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    CCC has received research support (to institution) from Pfizer. LG has participated in consulting activities for which she has received honoraria from Pfizer and Stemline/Menarini. RG has participated in consulting activities for which she has received honoraria from AstraZeneca. CI has participated in consulting activities for which she has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Gilead, and Merck; received royalties from Wolters Kluwer (UptoDate) and McGraw Hill (Goodman and Gillman); and received research support (to institution) from Tesaro/GSK, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, AztraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, and Novartis. SCO has received research support (to institution) from Pfizer and Gilead Sciences. No other authors have competing interests to disclose.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Exit interview guide.

    PDF File, 135 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Rapid qualitative analysis transcript summary template.

    PDF File, 117 KB
    Checklist 1

    CONSORT checklist.

    PDF File, 214 KB
    Checklist 2

    COREQ checklist.

    PDF File, 137 KB
    1. Liang Y, Zhang H, Song X, Yang Q. Metastatic heterogeneity of breast cancer: molecular mechanism and potential therapeutic targets. Semin Cancer Biol. Feb 2020;60:14-27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Caswell-Jin JL, Plevritis SK, Tian L, et al. Change in survival in metastatic breast cancer with treatment advances: meta-analysis and systematic review. JNCI Cancer Spectr. Nov 2018;2(4):pky062. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Santa-Maria CA, Gradishar WJ. Changing treatment paradigms in metastatic breast cancer: lessons learned. JAMA Oncol. Jul 2015;1(4):528-534. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Sundquist M, Brudin L, Tejler G. Improved survival in metastatic breast cancer 1985-2016. Breast. Feb 2017;31:46-50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Gogate A, Wheeler SB, Reeder-Hayes KE, et al. Projecting the prevalence and costs of metastatic breast cancer from 2015 through 2030. JNCI Cancer Spectr. Aug 2021;5(4):pkab063. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Mariotto AB, Etzioni R, Hurlbert M, Penberthy L, Mayer M. Estimation of the number of women living with metastatic breast cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. Jun 2017;26(6):809-815. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Guo YQ, Ju QM, You M, Liu Y, Yusuf A, Soon LK. Depression, anxiety and stress among metastatic breast cancer patients on chemotherapy in China. BMC Nurs. Feb 6, 2023;22(1):33. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Park EM, Gelber S, Rosenberg SM, et al. Anxiety and depression in young women with metastatic breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. Psychosomatics. 2018;59(3):251-258. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Islam N, Biswas J, Kowshik MM, et al. Depression, anxiety, and performance status among the women with metastatic breast cancer receiving palliative care in Bangladesh: a cross sectional study. Health Sci Rep. Nov 2022;5(6):e911. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Low CA, Stanton AL. Activity disruption and depressive symptoms in women living with metastatic breast cancer. Health Psychol. Jan 2015;34(1):89-92. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Senkpeil RR, Olson JS, Fortune EE, Zaleta AK. Pain and nausea intensity, social function, and psychological well-being among women with metastatic breast cancer. J Patient Exp. 2022;9:23743735221134733. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Karibayeva I, Turdaliyeva B, Zainal NZ, Bagiyarova F. The prevalence of depression symptoms among advanced breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. Oct 2020;138:S101. [CrossRef]
    13. Cardoso F, Spence D, Mertz S, et al. Global analysis of advanced/metastatic breast cancer: decade report (2005-2015). Breast. Jun 2018;39:131-138. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Oswald LB, Arredondo B, Kadono M, et al. A mixed-methods study of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor symptom burden and quality of life among metastatic breast cancer patients and providers. Cancer Med. Jul 2021;10(14):4823-4831. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Keane D, Phillips G, Mitchell N, Connolly RM, Hegarty J. Improving quality of life and symptom experience in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of supportive care interventions. Psychooncology. Aug 2023;32(8):1192-1207. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Ye ZJ, Qiu HZ, Liang MZ, et al. Effect of a mentor-based, supportive-expressive program, Be Resilient to Breast Cancer, on survival in metastatic breast cancer: a randomised, controlled intervention trial. Br J Cancer. Nov 7, 2017;117(10):1486-1494. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Sheean P, Matthews L, Visotcky A, et al. Every day counts: a randomized pilot lifestyle intervention for women with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Jun 2021;187(3):729-741. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Folkman S, Moskowitz JT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. Am Psychol. Jun 2000;55(6):647-654. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Diener E, Emmons RA. The independence of positive and negative affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. Nov 1984;47(5):1105-1117. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Schmukle SC, Egloff B, Burns LR. The relationship between positive and negative affect in the positive and negative affect schedule. J Res Pers. Oct 2002;36(5):463-475. [CrossRef]
    21. Mossman B, Small BJ, Velazquez-Sosa MA, et al. Ecological momentary assessment of quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer. Presented at: American Preventive Oncology Society Annual Meeting; Apr 6-8, 2025; Philadelphia, PA. URL: https://aspo.org/wp-content/uploads/030-HP_ASPO-Abstracts-2025_8.5x11_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 2025-10-02]
    22. Moskowitz JT, Cheung EO, Freedman M, et al. Measuring positive emotion outcomes in positive psychology interventions: a literature review. Emot Rev. Jan 2021;13(1):60-73. [CrossRef]
    23. Duan W, Klibert J, Schotanus-Dijkstra M, et al. Editorial: Positive psychological interventions: how, when and why they work: beyond WEIRD contexts. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1021539. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Cheung EO, Cohn MA, Dunn LB, et al. A randomized pilot trial of a positive affect skill intervention (lessons in linking affect and coping) for women with metastatic breast cancer. Psychooncology. Dec 2017;26(12):2101-2108. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR, Balz JP. Choice architecture. In: Shafir E, editor. The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy. Princeton University Press; 2014:428-439. [CrossRef] ISBN: 978-0691137568
    26. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. Jan 1992;43(1):87-131. [CrossRef]
    27. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62(1):451-482. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press; 2006. ISBN: 9781139457781
    29. Szaszi B, Palinkas A, Palfi B, Szollosi A, Aczel B. A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: toward understanding when and why nudges work. Behav Decis Mak. Jul 2018;31(3):355-366. [CrossRef]
    30. Tariman JD, Berry DL, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Schepp K. Validation and testing of the acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Appl Nurs Res. Feb 2011;24(1):53-58. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ, et al. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann Behav Med. May 18, 2018;52(6):446-462. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Shim Y, Scotney VS, Tay L. Conducting mobile-enabled ecological momentary intervention research in positive psychology: key considerations and recommended practices. J Posit Psychol. Sep 3, 2022;17(5):708-717. [CrossRef]
    33. LaFreniere LS, Newman MG. Upregulating positive emotion in generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial of the SkillJoy ecological momentary intervention. J Consult Clin Psychol. Jun 2023;91(6):381-387. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Sizemore KM, Gray S, Wolfer C, et al. A proof of concept pilot examining feasibility and acceptability of the positively healthy just-in-time adaptive, ecological momentary, intervention among a sample of sexual minority men living with HIV. J Happiness Stud. Dec 2022;23(8):4091-4118. [CrossRef]
    35. Heron KE, Smyth JM. Ecological momentary interventions: incorporating mobile technology into psychosocial and health behaviour treatments. Br J Health Psychol. Feb 2010;15(Pt 1):1-39. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Dao KP, De Cocker K, Tong HL, Kocaballi AB, Chow C, Laranjo L. Smartphone-delivered ecological momentary interventions based on ecological momentary assessments to promote health behaviors: systematic review and adapted checklist for reporting ecological momentary assessment and intervention studies. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Nov 19, 2021;9(11):e22890. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Thong MSY, Chan RJ, van den Hurk C, et al. Going beyond (electronic) patient-reported outcomes: harnessing the benefits of smart technology and ecological momentary assessment in cancer survivorship research. Support Care Cancer. Jan 2021;29(1):7-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Czajkowski SM, Powell LH, Adler N, et al. From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. Health Psychol. Oct 2015;34(10):971-982. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. Oct 24, 2016;355:i5239. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. Dec 2007;19(6):349-357. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. White N, Kupeli N, Vickerstaff V, Stone P. How accurate is the “Surprise Question” at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. Aug 2, 2017;15(1):139. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Jones TA, Olds TS, Currow DC, Williams MT. Feasibility and pilot studies in palliative care research: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage. Jul 2017;54(1):139-151. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Cutillo A, O’Hea E, Person S, Lessard D, Harralson T, Boudreaux E. The distress thermometer: cutoff points and clinical use. Oncol Nurs Forum. May 1, 2017;44(3):329-336. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Darwin Holmes AG. Researcher positionality—a consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research—a new researcher guide. Education. 2020;8(4):1-10. [CrossRef]
    45. Berger R. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual Res. Apr 2015;15(2):219-234. [CrossRef]
    46. Moskowitz JT, Hult JR, Duncan LG, et al. A positive affect intervention for people experiencing health-related stress: development and non-randomized pilot test. J Health Psychol. Jul 2012;17(5):676-692. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implementation Sci. Dec 2017;12(1):1-12. [CrossRef]
    48. Schalet BD, Pilkonis PA, Yu L, et al. Clinical validity of PROMIS depression, anxiety, and anger across diverse clinical samples. J Clin Epidemiol. May 2016;73:119-127. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, Ramirez M, Kim G. Psychometric properties and performance of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) depression short forms in ethnically diverse groups. Psychol Test Assess Model. 2016;58(1):141-181. [Medline]
    50. Teresi JA, Ocepek-Welikson K, Kleinman M, Ramirez M, Kim G. Measurement equivalence of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) anxiety short forms in ethnically diverse groups. Psychol Test Assess Model. 2016;58(1):183-219. [Medline]
    51. Fredrickson BL, Tugade MM, Waugh CE, Larkin GR. What good are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. J Pers Soc Psychol. Feb 2003;84(2):365-376. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Giorgi A. The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Duquesne University Press; 2009. ISBN: 978-0820704180
    53. Vindrola-Padros C, Johnson GA. Rapid techniques in qualitative research: a critical review of the literature. Qual Health Res. Aug 2020;30(10):1596-1604. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Averill JB. Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res. Jul 2002;12(6):855-866. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. Mar 2017;27(4):591-608. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Cella D, Choi S, Garcia S, et al. Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment. Qual Life Res. Dec 2014;23(10):2651-2661. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Terwee CB, Peipert JD, Chapman R, et al. Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures. Qual Life Res. Oct 2021;30(10):2729-2754. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Hendriks T, Schotanus-Dijkstra M, Hassankhan A, de Jong J, Bohlmeijer E. The efficacy of multi-component positive psychology interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Happiness Stud. Jan 2020;21(1):357-390. [CrossRef]
    59. Casellas-Grau A, Font A, Vives J. Positive psychology interventions in breast cancer. A systematic review. Psychooncology. Jan 2014;23(1):9-19. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Rouleau CR, Garland SN, Carlson LE. The impact of mindfulness-based interventions on symptom burden, positive psychological outcomes, and biomarkers in cancer patients. Cancer Manag Res. 2015;7:121-131. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Cillessen L, Johannsen M, Speckens AEM, Zachariae R. Mindfulness-based interventions for psychological and physical health outcomes in cancer patients and survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychooncology. Dec 2019;28(12):2257-2269. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Vilhauer RP. Perceived benefits of online support groups for women with metastatic breast cancer. Women Health. 2009;49(5):381-404. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Thomas JG, Bond DS. Behavioral response to a just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) to reduce sedentary behavior in obese adults: Implications for JITAI optimization. Health Psychol. Dec 2015;34S:1261-1267. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Nazaret A, Sapiro G. A large-scale observational study of the causal effects of a behavioral health nudge. Sci Adv. Sep 22, 2023;9(38):eadi1752. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Keller J, et al. A digital nudge-based intervention to interrupt Instagram usage: randomized controlled pilot study. Eur J Health Psychol. 2024;31(3):128-140. [CrossRef]
    66. Bagchi D, Mukherjee M, Nag I. Exploring “Nudge” in mental health research: a systematic review. In: Rodriguez RV, K H, Majumdar A, Basu R, editors. 1st International Conference, ‘Resonance’: On Cognitive Approach, Social Ethics and Sustainability: 23 and 24th November, 2022 School Of Liberal Arts and Humanities, Woxsen University, India. Routledge; 2022.
    67. Deges J, Hughes R, Tee D. Positive nudging: thematic analysis of the experience of participating in a signature strength behavioural nudging intervention. Int J Appl Posit Psychol. Aug 2024;9(2):1-22. [CrossRef]
    68. Farmer AS, Kashdan TB. Social anxiety and emotion regulation in daily life: spillover effects on positive and negative social events. Cogn Behav Ther. 2012;41(2):152-162. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Cohen LH, Gunthert KC, Butler AC, Parrish BP, Wenze SJ, Beck JS. Negative affective spillover from daily events predicts early response to cognitive therapy for depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. Dec 2008;76(6):955-965. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Nezlek JB, Kuppens P. Regulating positive and negative emotions in daily life. J Pers. Jun 2008;76(3):561-580. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Salsman JM, Pustejovsky JE, Schueller SM, et al. Psychosocial interventions for cancer survivors: a meta-analysis of effects on positive affect. J Cancer Surviv. Dec 2019;13(6):943-955. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Brown L, Ospina JP, Celano CM, Huffman JC. The effects of positive psychological interventions on medical patients’ anxiety: a meta-analysis. Psychosom Med. Sep 2019;81(7):595-602. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Tian X, Zhou X, Sun M, et al. The effectiveness of positive psychological interventions for patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. Aug 2024;33(9):3752-3774. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Addington EL, Cheung EO, Moskowitz JT. Who is most likely to benefit from a positive psychological intervention? Moderator analyses from a randomized trial in people newly diagnosed with HIV. J Posit Psychol. 2020;15(5):605-612. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Wolfson JA, Sun CL, Wyatt LP, Hurria A, Bhatia S. Impact of care at comprehensive cancer centers on outcome: results from a population-based study. Cancer. Nov 1, 2015;121(21):3885-3893. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Chen DW, Banerjee M, He X, et al. Hidden disparities: how language influences patients’ access to cancer care. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. Sep 2023;21(9):951-959. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Spiegel D, Willcox J, Modest AM, Bhargava N, Recht A. Impact of limited English proficiency on breast cancer outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Oct 2024;120(2):e67. [CrossRef]
    78. Janz NK, Mujahid MS, Hawley ST, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in quality of life after diagnosis of breast cancer. J Cancer Surviv. Dec 2009;3(4):212-222. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. Jul 2007;133(4):673-693. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Klasnja P, Hekler EB, Shiffman S, et al. Microrandomized trials: an experimental design for developing just-in-time adaptive interventions. Health Psychol. Dec 2015;34S:1220-1228. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Flowers M, Birkey Reffey S, Mertz SA, Marc Hurlbert for the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. Obstacles, opportunities and priorities for advancing metastatic breast cancer research. Cancer Res. Jul 1, 2017;77(13):3386-3390. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Mollica MA, Tesauro G, Tonorezos ES, Jacobsen PB, Smith AW, Gallicchio L. Current state of funded National Institutes of Health grants focused on individuals living with advanced and metastatic cancers: a portfolio analysis. J Cancer Surviv. Jun 2021;15(3):370-374. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Beatty L, Kemp E, Butow P, et al. A systematic review of psychotherapeutic interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer: context matters. Psychooncology. Jan 2018;27(1):34-42. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Teo I, Krishnan A, Lee GL. Psychosocial interventions for advanced cancer patients: a systematic review. Psychooncology. Jul 2019;28(7):1394-1407. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    85. Chakraborty B, Collins LM, Strecher VJ, Murphy SA. Developing multicomponent interventions using fractional factorial designs. Stat Med. Sep 20, 2009;28(21):2687-2708. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Wenzel M, Winkler M, Lasi J, Rowland Z. Examining demand effects on direct and indirect affect measures in affect induction procedures. Emotion. Oct 2024;24(7):1753-1770. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Cella D, Choi SW, Condon DM, et al. PROMIS® adult health profiles: efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value Health. May 2019;22(5):537-544. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Gage-Bouchard EA, Rodriguez EM, Saad-Harfouche FG, Miller A, Erwin DO. Factors influencing patient pathways for receipt of cancer care at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(10):e110649. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Dickson-Witmer D, Bleznak AD, Kennedy JS, et al. Breast cancer care in the community: challenges, opportunities, and outcomes. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. Jul 2011;20(3):555-580. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Conley C. Lessons in linking affect and coping (LILAC2). Open Science Framework. Mar 5, 2025. URL: https://osf.io/ec7zh/ [Accessed 2025-10-02]

    ‎
    CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
    COREQ: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research
    EMI: ecological momentary intervention
    MBC: metastatic breast cancer
    mDES: Modified Differential Emotions Scale
    POET: Positive Emotion Skills Training
    PPI: positive psychological intervention
    PROMIS: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System
    RQA: rapid qualitative analysis

    Edited by Javad Sarvestan; submitted 16.May.2025; peer-reviewed by Michael Pritchard, Pamela Hebbard; final revised version received 27.Aug.2025; accepted 09.Sep.2025; published 07.Oct.2025.

    Copyright

    © Claire C Conley, Elizabeth L Addington, Mikaela Velazquez-Sosa, Brenna Mossman, Lesley Glenn, Shontè Drakeford, Roxana Guerra, Claudine Isaacs, Ami Chitalia, Christopher Gallagher, Suzanne C O'Neill, Judith T Moskowitz. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 7.Oct.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.