ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
The acceptability and feasibility of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for parents of children treated for cancer: findings from a qualitative study involving public contributors.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite parents of children treated for cancer commonly reporting psychological difficulties such as symptoms of depression and anxiety, there is a lack of evidence-based psychological interventions tailored to their needs. We therefore developed an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR). We examined the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and study procedures in the single-arm feasibility trial ENGAGE. Results suggested the intervention and study procedures are feasible and acceptable. However, a need for modifications and refinements to the intervention and study procedures was identified. We conducted a qualitative interview study to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention and study procedures from the perspective of parents to inform modifications and refinements to the intervention and study procedures.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 52 parents (17 fathers, 35 mothers). A public contribution group (three parents of children treated for cancer) analysed the data independently from the research team and contributed to dissemination. An inductive content analysis was performed using the Framework Method.
resultsThe intervention was perceived as acceptable and relevant, and parents expressed positive attitudes toward internet-administered support. However, parents identified a need for adaptations to intervention content, e.g., a greater focus on the family, trauma, and the cancer experience. Barriers to engagement were also identified, including technical difficulties and a need for modifications to improve intervention user-friendliness and smartphone and/or tablet compatibility. Study procedures were also perceived as acceptable and feasible. However, a need was identified to improve parents' understanding of the study and to reduce the amount and frequency of assessments. The public contributors' analysis was similar to that of the research team. However, the research team overlooked important nuances. For example, the public contributors' analysis highlighted parents' difficulties distinguishing between the intervention and study procedures.
conclusionsThe intervention and study procedures were perceived as acceptable and feasible. However, the need for important modifications and refinements were suggested to improve future acceptability and feasibility. Involving public contributors in the analysis resulted in developing a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the data.
trial registrationISRCTN 57,233,429 (Registration date: 19/04/2018); ISRCTN 18,404,129 (Registration date: 25/11/2019).
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.