To be calculated as the percent of eligible participants approached who agree to participate. Will use one-sample tests of negative binomial probabilities and binomial proportions to compare rates of feasibility to hypothesized values. Rates will be summarized using point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

Out of 66 participants asked to participate, only 24 were eligible/enrolled into the intervention.

To be calculated as the percent of participants who complete the study intervention among those enrolled. Will use one-sample tests of negative binomial probabilities and binomial proportions to compare rates of feasibility to hypothesized values. Rates will be summarized using point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

To be calculated as the proportion of participants who complete the study measures among those enrolled. Will use one-sample tests of negative binomial probabilities and binomial proportions to compare rates of feasibility to hypothesized values. Rates will be summarized using point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize participant ratings of acceptability of intervention.

20 out of 24 participants were assessed at follow-up.

Each item in the scale ranges from 0-5, where 0=not at all true and 5=completely true. Scale is a mean of these items and thus ranges from the same minimum of 0 to the same maximum of 5. A higher score represent higher degree of autonomy.

Scale is a mean of physical and emotional functional management of chronic disease. Each of which runs from 1 (not at all confident) to 10 (totally confident). A higher score represents a higher degree of confidence in self-efficacy.

Overall score is based emotional and physical management of symptoms and is converted to a norm-based score that ranges from 0-100. Higher score means more of construct or response of managing symptoms.

The overall score is based on participant's relatedness to interventionists and is converted to a norm-based score that ranges from 26.6-72.5. Higher score on the HEAL measure means a higher degree of patient-provider connection as assessed by the patient.

Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) will be used to summarize proximal outcomes and change in health outcomes by assessment measure. The primary interest will be in estimating the variance for use in planning future studies. A 4-item questionnaires to assess participants' stress during the intervention at baseline and at two weeks with a difference of both time points. Scoring scale is from 0-4 ( 0 - never and 4 - very often). Scoring range is 0-16 with the higher score indicating higher stress.

PROMIS instruments contain a fixed number of items from seven PROMIS domains: depression; anxiety; physical function; pain interference; fatigue; sleep disturbance; and ability to participate in social roles and activities. The PROMIS-29, a generic health-related quality of life survey, assesses each of the 7 PROMIS domains with 4 questions. The questions are ranked on a 5-point Likert Scale. There is also one 11-point rating scale for pain intensity. Norm-based scores have been calculated for each domain on the PROMIS measures, so that a score of 50 represents the mean or average of the reference population. A score of 60 means that the person is one standard deviation above the reference population. On symptom oriented domains of PROMIS-29 (anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and sleep disturbance), higher scores represent worse symptomatology. On the function oriented domains (physical functioning and social role) higher scores represent better functioning.

Not all eligible participants may have completed the intervention. The difference scores are computed only on the n=20 (or 18) who have *both* scores, which is why the difference scores are different from simply taking the difference of the 2 reported means

Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize proximal outcomes. Participants were asked questions about their health behavior related to their past or present smoking behaviors (i.e. packs per day, last time they smoked) in order to help improve upon the information received to offer support for future studies.

Will conduct a qualitative content analysis. Qualitative data will be sent to an external vendor to be transcribed. Two internal study team members will double-code at least 10% of coding of transcripts from the semi-structured interviews and resolve any disagreements to ensure that robust and unbiased results are achieved. Will evaluate qualitative and quantitative analyses in a mixed-methods framework for consistency and discrepancies across all analyses to refine the protocol.

Qualitative interview data was collected from 19 participants. Information gained related to study processes enhanced understanding of quantitative results and will inform the next phase of study

The internal study team will work with collaborators through an iterative process to facilitate a qualitative content analysis of the large quantity of textual MAP data. Will examine all qualitative analyses by urban-rural status as classified using Rural Urban Commuting Area Codes. Qualitative results will be summarized by urban-rural status. Will also compare MAP results by rural-urban status.

Textual data from the intervention mapping was collected from 21 participants. Content analysis identified multi-level contextual factors influencing self-management and results were examined by rural-urban status.

Participant's ability to participate in physical activities (types of activities, intensity, etc.) will be assessed. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize proximal outcomes. The primary interest will be in estimating the variance for use in planning future studies.

Not all participants may have completed the intervention

Participants will assess the use of complementary or alternative therapies use since first diagnosed with cancer. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize proximal outcomes. The primary interest will be in estimating the variance for use in planning future studies.

Not all participants completed interventions in the two week (follow up) time frame

Will conduct a qualitative content analysis. Qualitative data will be sent to an external vendor to be transcribed. Two internal study team members will double-code at least 10% of coding of transcripts from the semi-structured interviews and resolve any disagreements to ensure that robust and unbiased results are achieved. Will evaluate qualitative and quantitative analyses in a mixed-methods framework for consistency and discrepancies across all analyses to refine the protocol.

Qualitative interview data was collected from 19 participants. Information gained related to study processes enhanced understanding of quantitative results and will inform the next phase of study.

Will conduct a qualitative content analysis. Qualitative data will be sent to an external vendor to be transcribed. Two internal study team members will double-code at least 10% of coding of transcripts from the semi-structured interviews and resolve any disagreements to ensure that robust and unbiased results are achieved. Will evaluate qualitative and quantitative analyses in a mixed-methods framework for consistency and discrepancies across all analyses to refine the protocol.

Qualitative interview data was collected from 19 participants. Information gained related to study processes enhanced understanding of quantitative results and will inform the next phase of study