Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26781620›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

Acceptability and feasibility of an e-mental health intervention for parents of childhood cancer survivors: "Cascade".

Claire E Wakefield, Ursula M Sansom-Daly, Brittany C McGill, Sarah J Ellis, Emma L Doolan, Eden G Robertson, Sanaa Mathur, Richard J Cohn

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Resilience Interventions Conducted in Western and Eastern Countries-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. The role of digital health technology in rural cancer care delivery: A systematic review.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Adapting a Preparatory Skills-Building Programme for Carers of People With Cancer Through Co-Design: The iCanSupport Project.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Claire E WakefieldKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. c.wakefield@unsw.edu.au.
Ursula M Sansom-DalyKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Brittany C McGillKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Sarah J EllisKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Emma L DoolanKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Eden G RobertsonKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Sanaa MathurKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.
Richard J CohnKids Cancer Centre (KCC), Level 1, Sydney Children's Hospital, High Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of "Cascade": an online, group-based, cognitive behavioral therapy intervention, delivered "live" by a psychologist, to assist parents of children who have completed cancer treatment.

methodsForty-seven parents were randomized to Cascade (n = 25) or a 6-month waitlist (n = 22). Parents completed questionnaires at baseline, 1-2 weeks and 6 months post-intervention. Thirty parents completed full evaluations of the Cascade program (n = 21 randomized to Cascade, n = 9 completed Cascade post-waitlist).

resultsNinety-six percent of Cascade participants completed the intervention (n = 24/25). Eighty percent of parents completed every questionnaire (mean completion time 25 min (SD = 12)). Cascade was described as at least "somewhat" helpful by all parents. None rated Cascade as "very/quite" burdensome. Parents reported that the "online format was easy to use" (n = 28, 93.3 %), "I learnt new skills" (n = 28, 93.3 %), and "I enjoyed talking to others" (n = 29, 96.7 %). Peer-to-peer benefits were highlighted by good group cohesion scores.

conclusionsCascade is highly acceptable and feasible. Its online delivery mechanism may address inequities in post-treatment support for parents, a particularly acute concern for rural/remote families. Future research needs to establish the efficacy of the intervention.

trial registrationACTRN12613000270718, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12613000270718.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolCognitive Behavioral TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsParentsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePsychotherapy, GroupSurvivorsCancer and oncologyComputer applications/eHealthCoping skills and adjustmentParents

Identifiers

PMID26781620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.