Does the Lightning Process Training Programme Reduce Chronic Fatigue in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors? A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Chronic fatigue is a common late adverse effect following oncological therapies. No effective treatments exist, although cognitive behaviour therapy has been reported to offer some benefits. The Lightning Process(®) is a three-day educational training programme with a six-month follow-up comprising elements derived from cognitive behaviour therapy, neurolinguistic programming, and stress theory, which are presented in a condensed form. This pilot intervention study represents the first systematic account of the experience and perceived efficacy of the LP training programme in 13 adolescent and young adult cancer survivors treated for sarcoma or Hodgkin lymphoma. Statistically significant improvements were documented for all the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) questionnaires comparing the pre- and post-intervention periods. The qualitative findings of the interviews corresponded well with the PROMs findings, as participants emphasised that they now experienced both less fatigue and explicit improvement in their energy level. ABSTRACT: Background: We report on a pilot intervention study exploring the efficacy of the Lightning Process(®) training programme for reducing chronic fatigue and improving health-related quality of life in cancer survivors. Methods: 13 adolescent and young adult cancer survivors previously treated for sarcoma or Hodgkin lymphoma were enrolled. A mixed-methods approach was applied. This involved the use of five validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) questionnaires at baseline and the three- and six-month follow-up points to obtain quantitative data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after the intervention with emphasis on the participants’ experiences and outcomes. A reflexive thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts. Results: A significant reduction (p < 0.001) in the total fatigue score from baseline to the three- and six-month follow-up points was documented. The correlation coefficients between the various PROMs at baseline and the six-month follow-up point indicated considerable overlap between the measures. The qualitative findings of the interviews corresponded well with the PROM findings. Most participants experienced both less fatigue and explicit improvement in their energy level. The aspects of the intervention found to be particularly helpful were the theoretical rationale and the coping techniques mediated. Conclusion: These encouraging results here reported should be of interest to the general oncological community, although they require confirmation through a larger and controlled study.