Key PointsQuestionDoes one-on-one delivery or group-based delivery of the Promoting Resilience in Stress Management for Parents (PRISM-P) intervention improve psychosocial outcomes, such as resilience and benefit finding, when compared with usual care among parents of children who receive a new diagnosis of cancer?FindingsThis randomized clinical trial of 94 parents of children newly receiving a diagnosis of cancer found that compared with usual care, one-on-one delivery of the intervention was significantly associated with improved parent-reported resilience and benefit finding. These improvements were not observed with group delivery of the intervention.MeaningThis intervention may help parents cope and find meaning after their child has received a diagnosis of a serious illness.

IMPORTANCE Pediatric palliative care treats patients with a wide variety of advanced illness conditions, often with substantial levels of pain and other symptoms. Clinical and research advancements regarding symptom management for these patients are hampered by the scarcity of data on symptoms as well as an overreliance on clinician report. OBJECTIVE To provide a detailed description of the symptoms among patients receiving pediatric palliative care based on parental report via a validated, structured symptom assessment measure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Baseline data for this cross-sectional analysis were collected between April 10, 2017, and February 5, 2020, from pediatric palliative care programs in 7 children's hospitals located in Akron

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer have poor psychosocial outcomes, in part because their limited participation in clinical trials precludes intervention-testing. We previously reported results of a successful randomized trial testing an AYA-targeted psychosocial intervention. Here, we aimed to describe strategies learned during the trial’s conduct. Methods: We summarized data from the medical record and staff field notes regarding reasons for participation/non-participation. We conducted two focus groups with study staff; directed content analyses identified strategies for success. Results: 92 AYAs enrolled (77% of approached; n = 50 Usual Care (control), n = 49 PRISM (intervention)). In eligible families who declined participation (n = 22 AYAs, n = 8 parents), the AYAs more commonly had advanced cancer (n = 11 (37%) declined vs. n = 25 (26%) enrolled). AYA reasons for non-enrollment were predominantly “not interested”; parents worried participation was “too burdensome.” Staff strategies for accrual included having significant time to introduce the study and underscoring a desire to learn from the patient. After enrollment, AYAs who discontinued participation were more commonly assigned to control (n = 5 (10%) control vs. n = 2 (4%) intervention). Only n = 1 AYA chose to discontinue participation after receiving the intervention. Conclusions: Efforts to engage AYAs prior to and during studies may help with accrual and retention.