ArticleJournal of pediatric nursing
Considerations in pediatric intervention research: Lessons learned from two pediatric pilot studies.
Article in Journal of pediatric nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposePediatric populations represent a vulnerable research group. Careful thought must be given to many factors when designing and implementing pediatric intervention research studies. This article discusses methodological and implementation lessons learned from two pediatric intervention pilot studies and highlights facilitators and barriers encountered. TYPE OF
methodBoth studies used a pre/post with 6-week follow-up method and were adapted versions of an evidence-based program, Creating Opportunities for Personal Empowerment (COPE). ESSENTIAL FEATURES: COPE is a 7-session, cognitive behavioral skills building intervention. COPE for Asthma was implemented in schools with small groups for elementary-aged children with asthma and symptoms of anxiety. Mindstrong to Combat Bullying was implemented individually in the outpatient mental health setting for adolescents who had experienced bullying with concurrent symptoms of depression/anxiety. METHODOLOGICAL APPLICATION: Both intervention studies were successful in achieving their research aims, but more importantly the authors learned important lessons in how to successfully work with pediatric populations in research studies. Legal considerations, such as mandated reporting, suicide risk assessment and the inclusion of parents are reviewed. Other components, such as working with children vs. adolescents, integrating research into school-based settings vs. clinic-based settings, and completing intervention research in a group setting vs. individual setting are discussed.
conclusionsThe two pilot studies highlight important factors to consider when designing and implementing pediatric intervention studies. While challenges arise in working with this vulnerable population, research is ultimately needed to provide the best evidence-based care for our future generations. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe COPE for Asthma study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: govNCT03481673.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.