Effect of a group intervention for children and their parents who have cancer

Abstract

Our results suggest that the group intervention using the CLIMB® Program relieved children's posttraumatic stress symptoms and improved parents' quality of life. The intervention proved the feasibility of delivering the program using manuals and training. Further research is needed to provide more substantiation for the benefits of the program.

How psychosocial interventions meet the needs of children of parents with cancer: A review and critical evaluation

“…Only one intervention (7%; Davey et al., 2013) explicitly reported incorporating consumer involvement in programme development, with the remaining 93% reporting to use clinical experience, pilot studies, past literature and/or not specifying the method of programme development. Interventions were delivered by registered health professionals including psychologists ( n = 4, 27%; Bingisser et al., 2018; Hauken, Pereira, & Senneseth, 2018; Kobayashi, Heiney, Osawa, Ozawa, & Matsushima, 2017; Shallcross, Visvanathan, McCauley, Clay, & van Dernoot, 2016), child life specialists ( n = 2, 13%; Kobayashi et al., 2017; Phillips & Prezio, 2017), social workers ( n = 4, 27%; Christ et al., 2005; Kobayashi et al., 2017; Olsson et al., 2017; Shallcross et al., 2016) and nurses ( n = 2, 13%; Northouse et al., 2002; Olsson et al., 2017).…”

“…Overall, none of the 15 included programmes clearly met all six needs; however, there was partial evidence that the Children of Somatically Ill Parents (COSIP) programme met each of the six needs (Thastum et al., 2006), and there was clear evidence that the Wonders and Worries programme met five of six needs, with partial evidence available for meeting all six (Phillips & Prezio, 2017). Two programmes (13%) clearly met four of six needs: a Japanese adapted version of Children's Lives Include Moments of Bravery (CLIMB) showed partial evidence for the fifth need (Kobayashi et al., 2017) and a culturally adapted family intervention for African American families showed no evidence for the remaining two needs (Davey et al., 2013). The FOCUS (Family involvement, Optimistic attitude, Coping effectiveness, Uncertainty reduction, Symptom management) programme showed the least evidence of meeting the six needs relative to the other programmes reviewed, showing partial evidence for only two needs (Northouse et al., 2002).…”

“…Of the 15 intervention studies, most demonstrated clear ( n = 6, 40%; Azarbarzin et al., 2015; Bingisser et al., 2018; Kobayashi et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2015; Phillips & Prezio, 2017; Shallcross et al., 2016) or partial ( n = 5, 33%; Holland et al., 2018; John et al., 2013; Niemelä, Repo, et al, 2012; Northouse et al., 2002; Thastum et al., 2006) evidence that age‐ or developmentally appropriate information was provided to participants. Interventions that clearly addressed this standard did so in a variety of ways, through books, art, online information, pamphlets, videos and even a tour of a cancer treatment facility (Phillips & Prezio, 2017).…”

“…Eight interventions (53%) demonstrated clear evidence that they supported child–parent and/or family communication (Bingisser et al., 2018; Davey et al., 2013; John et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2015; Niemelä, Repo, et al, 2012; Phillips & Prezio, 2017; Shallcross et al., 2016). Interventions used a variety of methods, including direct guidance regarding communication with children (Shallcross et al., 2016), parents (Bingisser et al., 2018; Lewis et al., 2015; Niemelä, Repo, et al, 2012) or both (Davey et al., 2013; John et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2017), as well as the provision of pamphlets to support parents’ communication (Phillips & Prezio, 2017). Five additional interventions (33%) showed partial evidence (Christ et al., 2005; Hauken, Senneseth, Dyregrov, & Dyregrov, 2015; Holland et al., 2018; Northouse et al., 2002; Thastum et al., 2006) and two (13%) did not specify how, if at all, this need was met (Azarbarzin et al., 2015; Olsson et al., 2017).…”

“…Six interventions (40%) clearly met this need (Davey et al., 2013; John et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2017; Olsson et al., 2017; Phillips & Prezio, 2017; Shallcross et al., 2016), with an additional four (27%) showing partial evidence (Azarbarzin et al., 2015; Bingisser et al., 2018; Hauken et al., 2015; Thastum et al., 2006). Of those that clearly met this need, five used peer group sessions which allowed children to meet peers experiencing a similar situation (Davey et al., 2013; John et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al., 2017; Olsson et al., 2017; Shallcross et al., 2016); and one intervention provided the option of group sessions and organised special events to bring together families in similar circumstances (Phillips & Prezio, 2017). Of the four interventions that provided partial evidence, two gave the child an option of receiving the intervention in a group format rather than individually (Azarbarzin et al., 2015; Thastum et al., 2006), and one provided adolescents (>12 years) access to a closed online group, allowing them to interact with others affected by parental cancer (Bingisser et al., 2018).…”