ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
A brief feasibility report on an online psychosocial support intervention for adults with Li-Fraumeni syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a rare autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome characterized by a markedly elevated lifetime cancer risk. Despite the substantial psychological burden associated with LFS, tailored psychosocial interventions remain unavailable. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) are evidence-based approaches widely applied in psycho-oncological care; however, no intervention has been specifically adapted for individuals with LFS. Consequently, we developed OnLiFe, an online self-management program designed to meet the unique needs of this population and investigated its acceptability and practicality in a small adult cohort. Methods: OnLiFe comprises six modules focusing on psychoeducation about emotions, mindfulness practices, and resource activation. Acceptability and practicality were assessed in terms of comprehension and satisfaction with content, usefulness, simplicity, and integrability for each module and content element. Qualitative feedback was collected through open-ended questions and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Nine female participants (mean age 46.0 ± 7.1 years) enrolled, of whom four completed all modules. Participant satisfaction with OnLiFe was rated moderate to high, while perceived helpfulness of the content showed relatively lower ratings. Qualitative data indicated that the intervention was perceived as too lengthy and that participants' busy schedules limited full engagement. Conclusion: Given the distinct challenges of LFS, tailored psychosocial support is required. Despite careful theoretical considerations, OnLiFe showed mixed results regarding acceptability and practicality. Addressing time constraints will be essential, and future studies are warranted to optimize and determine the efficacy of an adapted version of OnLiFe.
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.