ArticleAdvances in rehabilitation science and practice
Community Support for Caregivers of Children With Sickle Cell Disease: A 3-Year Process Evaluation.
Article in Advances in rehabilitation science and practice. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD), the most common monogenetic childhood disorder, imposes a significant psychosocial and financial burden on caregivers of affected children. Despite the availability of community-based support programs, few are tailored to the specific identified needs of caregivers managing SCD. This study presents a comprehensive program evaluation of a community-partnered caregiver retreat hosted by the St. Louis Sickle Cell Association (SCA). Methods: Researchers collaborated with the SCA to evaluate their annual weekend-long retreat. Year 1 employed a cross-sectional design using the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Year 2 implemented a pre-post design using the Family Empowerment Scale. In Year 3, a mixed-methods design included the Social Support Survey Instrument, 2 focus groups, and 6 interviews. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Findings revealed no significant group-level empowerment changes in Year 2, though individual improvements were noted. In Year 3, caregivers reported strong emotional and social support but low tangible support. Thematic analysis identified 5 themes: SCD awareness gaps, caregiving burden, psychological toll, support variability, and caregiver-identified solutions. Caregivers emphasized a need for peer connection, mental health support, practical advocacy training, and expanded access to retreat programming. Discussion: This program evaluation demonstrates the meaningful support provided by community-based caregiver retreats while highlighting areas for enhancement. The findings underscore the value of systematic evaluation in identifying program strengths and opportunities for improvement to better serve caregiver needs. Conclusion: Community-based partnerships can enhance support for caregivers of children with SCD. This evaluation identifies essential program components and demonstrates how systematic assessment can inform program development to better address unmet caregiver needs and advance health equity.
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.