Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Postcancer treatment support programme: an evaluation
  1. Charlotte Murray1,
  2. Jenny Makinson2,
  3. Lauren Brown1 and
  4. Julia Allan1
  1. 1 Health Psychology, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
  2. 2 Maggie's Centre, Aberdeen, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Julia Allan, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK; j.allan{at}


Objectives As the number of people living beyond cancer treatment has increased, supportive post-treatment interventions have become increasingly important. The present study investigates whether participation in the Maggie’s ‘Where Now?’ post-cancer support programme is associated with improvements in healthy eating, quality of life, self-efficacy (confidence) or cancer worry.

Methods In a pre–post design, 88 people who had completed cancer treatment and were enrolled in the 7-week ‘Where Now?’ programme at Maggie’s centres across the UK rated their diet, activity, quality of life, self-efficacy and cancer worries before and after programme participation. Programme content was coded to identify the techniques used to create change (‘behaviour change techniques’).

Results Programme participation was associated with significant improvements in general self-efficacy (p=0.01), self-efficacy about engaging in physical activity (p<0.01), quality of life (p<0.01) and cancer worry (p=0.04) but not with changes in healthy eating (p=0.23).

Conclusion Participation in the ‘Where Now?’ programme is associated with significant improvements in several key psychological outcomes in people living beyond cancer. The techniques most commonly used in the programme to create change were giving participants instructions about how to perform a particular behaviour, encouraging problemsolving to overcome barriers and setting goals.

  • Cancer
  • Survivorship
  • Quality of life
  • Psychological care

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors CM, JA, LB and JM contributed to design, data collection and interpretation, drafting and revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Bethany Mills collected study data but did not meet the other criteria for authorship.

  • Funding This work was supported by the University of Aberdeen via research funds provided to CM and LB as part of their postgraduate studies.

  • Competing interests JM was employed by Maggie’s Centres at the time of data collection and was involved in the delivery of the WhereNow? programme.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.