Approval and setting
The NADA acupuncture service was offered from 2005 to 2020 by the Complementary Therapy Service (CTS) at the Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre (LJMC), a cancer information and drop-in centre associated with Mount Vernon Cancer Centre in Northwood, Middlesex UK. Data collection to evaluate the service was approved by the LJMC Medical Director in 2005; in line with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines for unproven interventions in clinical practice, all service users gave written consent to their participation in the evaluation of the service [31]. The CTS was supported by the Centre’s research team, who administered and analysed the service data.
UK non-acupuncturists with a healthcare qualification (including integrative practitioners) can become NADA specialists on receiving initial training and annual updates. This service saw four practitioners train as NADA specialists, one of whom was a specialist breast cancer nurse, and the others were integrative therapists practising a range of therapies. Co-authors PT and TD have further developed the service and administered treatments for the last 13 and eight years respectively.
Service description
This service was built on our previous research using the NADA protocol, which we have reported elsewhere [22, 32]. Briefly, the research and service comprise an intake interview at least two weeks prior to the first NADA treatment, then a course of eight treatments delivered weekly in a group setting to women meeting these criteria: taking adjuvant hormonal treatments for early breast cancer (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors) for ≥6 months, post-active cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy) completed ≥6 months previously, self-reporting an average of ≥4 HFNS in a 24-hour period for ≥3 months, and not receiving concurrent complementary therapies. Women were referred by their oncology healthcare professionals or could self-refer.
Once established, the service evolved to fulfil the Centre’s ethos of care, adapting in response to the needs of women who were service users rather than research participants. Changes include:
• A sample treatment (needles in one ear for five minutes) was given at the intake interview after the woman gave written consent for treatment and completed baseline measures.
• Increased focus on developing the therapeutic relationship, which had been minimised in the research.
• Therapists offered support when administering the baseline outcome measures, as some women found completing these challenging.
• Groups were limited to four women, rather than five, in response to feedback about the comfort of the small clinical spaces available in the centre.
• A brief group relaxation exercise was introduced. This preceded needling, which took place in the group, rather than individually in a separate room.
Other changes related to data collection. Mid-treatment outcomes were not monitored, reducing the number of measurement points to four, as described below. The NADA specialists administered and collected the outcome measures at baseline. At the eighth and final treatment, they gave the women the end of treatment outcome measures and a stamped addressed envelope, with instructions to complete them that day. These were to be posted with the completed Hot Flush Diary two weeks later to the research team’s data administrator, who also administered the outcome measures for the two follow-up points by post.
Safety and adverse events were formally recorded on incident forms and in patient notes following procedures applied to all complementary therapy services delivered in the LJMC.
Outcome measures
To monitor the service, we used the same outcome measures as in our research. These were administered at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and at four (Post tx 4) and 18 (Post tx 18) weeks after EOT. Briefly outlined below, we have described these elsewhere [21, 22]:
• Hot Flush Diaries – to measure HFNS frequency and severity these in-house designed booklets enable women to record frequency and severity of incidents at 2-hourly intervals daily, ideally as they occur, for up to 14 days.
• Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS) – to measure the extent to which HFNS are a problem, this validated self-report measure has three questions using 10-point Likert scales to rate the extent to which HFNS are problematic, distressing, and the cause of interference in daily life [33, 34]. Problem rating is calculated as the mean of the three questions, with higher scores indicating more problematic HFNS. A change of 2 points on this scale is considered clinically relevant [35].
• Women’s Health Questionnaire (WHQ) - to evaluate quality of life, this validated 36-item questionnaire measures changes in nine domains of physical and emotional health associated with the menopause transition. Analysis according to the WHQ Women’s Health Questionnaire User Guide [36] results in a score between 0.00 – 1.00, where higher scores are associated with worse symptomology and quality of life. A change of 0.10-0.20 is clinically meaningful.
Statistics
Data were analysed using SPSS V22.0. The frequency of HFNS per day for each woman was calculated from data entered onto the hot flush diaries. Provided at least six of the 12 2-hourly intervals were completed on any one day (including “0” for no HFNS) and any missing data appeared to be random, the daily means and medians were calculated from the available data (effectively imputing missing data points with the daily means or medians calculated from the reported data points).
As in our previous HFNS studies, log transformation of these calculated daily means produced a normal distribution, allowing parametric t-tests to be used for comparison with baseline scores [21, 22].
Data from the HFRS and WHQ were assessed for normality. On the WHQ domains Depressed Mood and Memory/Concentration were very skewed, whilst other scales were less skewed but exhibited kurtosis. Only Somatic Symptoms was normally distributed. Data were therefore analysed using both Student’s t tests and their non-parametric equivalent. Similar significance levels were achieved with both analyses, so only t tests are reported here.