ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2024
Feasibility Study of Taking Back Control Together, an Intervention to Support Parents of Children with Cancer.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A Multi-Site Refinement Study ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Explaining adherence to contrasted physical activity and nutrition scenarios in post-treatment childhood cancer patients: A cross-sectional study using variables from the Theory of Planned Behavior.Health psychology openArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionParents of children with cancer can experience increased emotional distress. This study aimed to assess the feasibility (i.e., reach, treatment fidelity, and social validity) of Taking Back Control Together (TBCT).
methodsWe assessed reach with the enrollment and dropout ratios. We assessed treatment fidelity using items from existing programs, controlling for the reliability of the items. For social validity, we used an adapted version of the Treatment Evaluation Inventory and compared means with theoretical cut-points.
results42 participants enrolled in the intervention. The enrollment and dropout ratios were 39% and 38%, respectively. Treatment fidelity was 77.3-84.3% (95%CI 75.3-86%). Acceptability (M = 90%), satisfaction (M = 87%), and relevance (M = 82%) were significantly positive.
conclusionThis study suggests that certain elements of TBCT need to be reassessed before the intervention is pilot tested. Although reach was likely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it could be improved with some modifications to the intervention.
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.