ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Implementing Integrative Psychosocial Care for Siblings and Caregivers of Youth with Cancer.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPsychosocial care for siblings and caregivers of youth with cancer (SCYC) is a critical yet under-implemented component of comprehensive pediatric oncology care, as outlined by the Standards for Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and Their Families. Despite evidence supporting psychosocial interventions, such as integrative care interventions, as effective for stress mitigation and coping, barriers to implementation include revenue-generating funding models and siloed psychosocial disciplines, which hinder accessibility for adult caregivers within pediatric institutions and geographically dispersed families. This manuscript describes the relevant extant literature as well as a model for leveraging short-term funding opportunities and interdisciplinary collaboration to develop integrative care programs for these underserved groups.
methodsPhilanthropic funding supported part-time child life specialist and creative arts therapist deployment to develop and implement integrative virtual group programs, as well as interdisciplinary integrative programs, to serve SCYC. Attendance, engagement, and qualitative feedback were used for program iteration and supported the transition to institutional funding.
resultsIntegrative programs provided 331 caregiver and sibling encounters during the two-year pilot. Qualitative feedback from caregivers highlighted the value of virtual services in reaching geographically dispersed families and addressing feelings of isolation among SCYC at the universal and targeted levels of care. Communication about these key outcomes led to operational funding and sustained integrated care programs.
conclusionsThis manuscript illustrates a successful model of leveraging philanthropic funding to support the development of integrative care programs to serve SCYC. Future research should focus on refining the clinical and financial feasibility of such models and assessing their impact on family well-being.
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.