Keywords
Fear of Cancer Recurrence, Co-design, Group-based intervention, Public and Patient Involvement, Psychological intervention, Cancer survivor
-
Views
5
Downloads
How to cite this article
O'Brien C, Pertl M, Guinan E et al. Fear Of cancer Recurrence Group-based intervEntion (FORGE): Study protocol for the co-design of a psychological intervention for young adult cancer survivors [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res 2026, 9:63 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14446.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Study Protocol
Fear Of cancer Recurrence Group-based intervEntion (FORGE): Study protocol for the co-design of a psychological intervention for young adult cancer survivors
[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 16 Jun 2026
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Corresponding author:
Catherine O'Brien
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
This work was funded by the Irish Cancer Society through the research grant CNRA23OBR.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© 2026 O'Brien C et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: O'Brien C, Pertl M, Guinan E et al. Fear Of cancer Recurrence Group-based intervEntion (FORGE): Study protocol for the co-design of a psychological intervention for young adult cancer survivors [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res 2026, 9:63 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14446.1)
First published: 16 Jun 2026, 9:63 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14446.1)
Latest published: 16 Jun 2026, 9:63 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14446.1)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Introduction
Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is one of the most common unmet needs among cancer survivors, with approximately 59% reporting at least moderate levels of FCR and close to one in five patients experiencing high or clinically significant levels.1–4 This is pointedly higher for younger adult patients (84%) for a number of reasons, including their likely long survival rates and risk of developing secondary malignancies.5 Early-onset cancer in young adults under 50 years has increased over the past two decades, creating distinct physical, psychosocial and support needs.6,7 Their experience is often socially isolating and marked by significant distress and uncertainty with attainment of life milestones such as education, career, relationships and family considerably impacted by FCR.6,8,9 This highlights the growing need to tailor age-specific psychological support groups with peers of similar age.9,10
The effectiveness and efficacy of various psychological interventions for FCR have been widely demonstrated, particularly in a one-to-one format. FCR psychological interventions need to be accessible and efficient to meet the needs of the growing population of people living with and beyond cancer, with growing healthcare costs and limited resources.11 Group-based approaches are more scalable, can maximise resources and provide peer support.12,13 While adapting evidence-based interventions for new contexts is regarded as more efficient than developing entirely new approaches, their effectiveness may diminish when they are replicated without modification.14 Wide variation in existing group-based FCR programmes limits evidence on optimal design, highlighting the need for further research on how best to adapt one-to-one FCR interventions for different clinical settings, particularly for young adult cancer survivors.
Adapting existing interventions, in order to work in practice, need to be co-designed with both professional and PPI stakeholders to ensure they are based on the lived experiences of individuals living with and beyond cancer.15 The focus of patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical research has become increasingly essential in the past decade to ensure meaningful outcomes by empowering patients and the public to play an active role in their healthcare decisions and facilitate shared decision-making.16 This study will use the ADAPT framework and co-design to adapt an existing contemporary FCR intervention, currently delivered in a one-to-one format, into a group setting for cancer survivors at a large comprehensive cancer centre in Ireland.14,17 An initial feasibility study undertaken within the hospital suggested a strong interest in a group-based FCR intervention, highlighting the need for high-quality empirical research.18 This study will focus on the design and delivery aspects that are imperative for the adaptation and implementation of intervention, appropriately tailored to the needs of young adult cancer survivors.
Aims
To co-design the adaptation of a group-based intervention that is feasible and appropriate for young adult patients (aged 18–50 years) with at least moderate levels of FCR-related distress.
Objectives
• To collaborate with people living with and beyond cancer, family caregivers and health professionals, in adapting an existing contemporary one-to-one FCR intervention to a group-based format that is age-specific.
• To ensure the logistics of the design are based on the lived experiences of individuals living with and beyond cancer through stakeholder partnership, while maintaining the core components of the psychological intervention, to ensure accessibility, uptake and sustained engagement.
• To co-design an appropriate management intervention for psychosocial distress across the spectrum of FCR needs, which are scalable and transferrable to psycho-oncology multidisciplinary teams recently established in other cancer centres nationally, and will be sustainable as a survivorship-friendly intervention.
Methods
ADAPT framework
This study is part of a larger project that aims to adapt and test an existing one-to-one FCR psychological intervention into a group setting. Table 1 outlines the steps in the ADAPT framework with details relating to this study.14 This phase follows step 2 in the process.
Table 1. ADAPT framework for FORGE study.
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)
A PPI panel comprising three experts with lived experience of cancer and aged between 18–50 years, informed the development of this protocol. This process included the development of participant information leaflets, research questions, and practical considerations for the workshops. The PPI partners will co-facilitate the co-design workshops to create an open and supportive environment, enhance credibility and ensure more meaningful and participant-centred discussion. They are members of the project steering committee, together with representatives from psychology, nursing, medicine and relevant academic fields. The committee will inform and shape the overall project decision-making by drawing on their knowledge, experience and expertise to ensure the project achieves the intended outcomes and impact. The PPI panel contribution will be reported using the short form Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF).16
Co-design participants
This study will use the principles of co-design through stakeholder consultation to conduct three workshops with a minimum of ten participants recruited for each workshop.19,20 Participants will be Experts by Experience (Cancer survivors and family caregivers) and Experts by Profession (e.g., doctors, nurses, psychologists) to adapt an existing contemporary one-to-one FCR intervention, currently delivered in a large comprehensive cancer centre in Ireland, into the group-based format.
The workshops will be promoted via social media, patient cancer advocacy groups, and healthcare professional networks. Interested individuals can contact the lead researcher to ask questions about the study and receive the Participant Information Leaflet by post or email, or access the leaflet through a QR code on the poster. Written consent will be obtained in person at the workshop.
Inclusion criteria
Cancer survivors (Experts by Experience)
• Received a diagnosis of cancer and completed active cancer treatment at least one year previously (i.e. surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy).
• Aged between 18 and 50 years.
• Be able to provide informed written consent.
• Be fluent in English language.
Family Caregiver Representatives (Experts by Experience)
• Be the family caregiver for someone who has completed active cancer treatment at least one year previously who were aged between 18 and 50 years at time of cancer treatment completion.
• Be able to provide informed written consent.
• Be fluent in English language.
Healthcare Professionals (Experts by Profession)
• Medical, nursing, psychologist, social worker, physiotherapist, occupational therapist or other healthcare professional working and involved in the care of patients, aged between 18 and 50 years, living with and beyond cancer.
• Be able to provide informed written consent.
• Be fluent in English language.
Exclusion criteria
Cancer survivor/Family Caregiver Representatives
• Cancer patients with evidence of disease recurrence or metastases.
• Caring for someone with evidence of disease recurrence or metastases.
• Unable to provide informed consent.
• Not fluent in English language.
Healthcare Professionals
Study procedures
This study will use a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) through a series of workshops. NGT is a highly structured, face-to-face group intervention that poses specific questions for discussion, empowering participants by giving them an opportunity to have their voices and opinions heard by all members.21 The group workshop is highly structured and involves two to three questions which are sent to the participants in advance:
1. What would be the best way to deliver the group-based programme? (i.e., number/frequency/length of sessions)
2. What age groups would be best together at the group-based programme? (i.e., 18-24 years/25-35 years)
3. What would be the preferred venue for the group-based programme? (i.e., hospital/cancer support centre)
The NGT method is highly adaptive, and variations can be influenced by a number of factors, including consensus or generalisability required for the topic.22 Typically, NGTs involve a single workshop; however, in this study, there will be three individual face-to-face workshops held in different geographically located areas to ensure broad national representation, encompassing both rural and urban areas in Ireland. Participants will be invited to attend one workshop to discuss the first three steps (i.e. idea generation, sharing ideas, and refining ideas). Each workshop will follow the same format posing the same questions to each group. The final step of ranking and voting on ideas to reach consensus will be held virtually, with participants from all three workshops invited to participate.23
While NGTs typically range from two to fourteen participants, a maximum of seven has been recommended.22 It is anticipated there will be a minimum of ten participants recruited in this study for each of the three workshops – six to seven cancer survivors/family carer representatives (Experts by Experience) and three to four healthcare professionals (Experts by Profession). This approach is to ensure that the different participant age ranges (18–50 years) are represented and allows for a variety of healthcare professional representation. This number will also allow for attrition while ensuring representation of each cohort. Each workshop will be facilitated by the lead researcher and a member of the steering committee, including a PPI partner.
Following an introduction to the study and purpose of the workshop by the lead researcher, participants will be divided into subgroups of three or four with a mix of Experts by Experience and Experts by Profession in each group. This approach is a modification to the NGT structure to combine steps one and two (‘idea generation’ and ‘sharing of ideas’) to allow for the larger group structure and time constraints, while ensuring each participant has an opportunity to contribute.22 Each subgroup will be facilitated by a member of the research team. The lead researcher will explain the discussion question and allow 30–40 minutes for each subgroup to generate suggestions. Post-it notepads will be used to colour code answers from each question. A final discussion will take place with the whole group to clarify and refine the ideas generated.
All participants from each of these three workshops will then be invited to attend a virtual stakeholder meeting to complete the final stage of the co-design process- ‘ranking/voting preference of ideas’. The ideas generated from the three workshops will be compiled and presented to the group. They will be asked to rank each idea in order of their preference (5 being the most important aspect, 1 being the least important aspect). The number of votes for each idea will be added up to reach a final consensus. Results will be available in real time, with participants seeing them for each question.24
Data collection
Participants will provide demographic details at the beginning of the face-to-face workshops to outline representation from both Experts by Experience and Experts by Profession. The workshops will not be recorded but written post-it notes generated during the workshops will be secured by the lead researcher.
Results
Data analysis
Summative content analysis will be used to categorise the ideas generated during the three face-to-face workshops. This method allows the identification of recurring keywords to detect the most common suggestions for each question. Voting responses at the online virtual consensus meeting will be captured using the Mentimeter poll, a third-party platform specialising in online interactive voting and ranking.25,26 Results will be automatically populated onto an Excel spreadsheet highlighting the weight and ranking preferences for each question and will be available to participants at the end of the consensus meeting.
Discussion
Group-based interventions offer a structured and efficient approach to delivering targeted FCR treatments while fostering a peer support environment. However, variations in current group design highlight the need for further work to adapt an existing contemporary group-based FCR intervention that will address the needs of young adult cancer survivors experiencing at least moderate levels of FCR in Ireland. The outcome of this study will provide the structure for a psychological intervention that has been created by peers who have experienced the same condition and collaborated on its design. The next phase of the overall project (ADAPT Step 3) will involve a feasibility pilot to assess the suitability and acceptability of the adapted, scalable group-based FCR intervention for use across cancer centres in Ireland.
Download
Export To
CITE
how to cite this article
O'Brien C, Pertl M, Guinan E et al. Fear Of cancer Recurrence Group-based intervEntion (FORGE): Study protocol for the co-design of a psychological intervention for young adult cancer survivors [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. HRB Open Res 2026, 9:63 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14446.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
- Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
- You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
- You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
- You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
- You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
- You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
- You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with HRB Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Comments on this article Comments (0)