Objectives:A large proportion of families with a child suffering from cancer are heavily burdened, both psychologically and socially functions, thus requiring treatment. Therefore, a systematic assessment of burden and needs is essential to identify clients with a high psychosocial burden and to allow for accurate decision making regarding indications for treatment. There is a great need for the development and validation of screening instruments in psychosocial counseling. Methods:The receiver operating characteristic curve is a basic method to evaluate the discriminatory power of diagnostic tests. We computed sensitivity/specificity indices based on a sample of parents of pediatric cancer patients; the parents were screened with the S-FIRST and completed another standardized instrument with reliable indicators. Results:We found significant area under the curve (AUC) values from 0.671 to 0.882, meaning that the S-FIRST screening instrument has small to medium discriminatory power. Conclusion:Our results support the use of a screening instrument for case history analyses in psychosocial counseling to identify clients with a high psychosocial burden.

No abstract

When a child is diagnosed with cancer, there can be serious consequences for the entire family. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between social counseling based on different social diagnostic methods and parent’s quality of life, psychosocial burden, and sense of coherence. Seventy-one parents of children with cancer were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups and were interviewed at three measurement times. Analysis of covariance was used for the data analysis. With respect to the effects of social counseling based on different social diagnostic methods, the results are somewhat mixed. We found only few significant effects between the intervention and control groups but a significant influence of moderating variables like the child’s health status. There were significant changes in parent’s quality of life and psychosocial burden, but the findings provided no evidence that one social diagnostic method works better than the other one. Methodological reasons concerning sample size and program integrity are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract