2015
DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic Review: Family Resilience After Pediatric Cancer Diagnosis: Figure 1.

Abstract: We suggest future research with a greater focus on family resilience and factors predicting it, based on available theory, and conducted with attention toward unit of measurement and use of appropriate statistical analyses. Improvements in research are needed to best inform family-based clinical efforts.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
121
3
7

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 130 publications
(141 citation statements)
references
References 104 publications
10
121
3
7
Order By: Relevance
“…The current review is the third in a series of systematic reviews summarizing qualitative and quantitative evidence of family and couple functioning after a pediatric cancer diagnosis . While the previously published reviews focused on family‐related and individual child functioning in the context of pediatric cancer, the focus of the current review is on relationship functioning within the couple subsystem.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The current review is the third in a series of systematic reviews summarizing qualitative and quantitative evidence of family and couple functioning after a pediatric cancer diagnosis . While the previously published reviews focused on family‐related and individual child functioning in the context of pediatric cancer, the focus of the current review is on relationship functioning within the couple subsystem.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the previously published reviews focused on family‐related and individual child functioning in the context of pediatric cancer, the focus of the current review is on relationship functioning within the couple subsystem. All reviews followed a strict scientific method, as outlined by Eiser, Hill, and Vance and the Cochrane Collaboration, to conduct a rigorous systematic search and provide a reliable and unbiased overview of the findings (see Van Schoors et al for more details). A literature search was conducted in July 2014 and was updated in October 2015 to include the most recent published articles on this topic.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, when faced with childhood cancer, families need to deal with intense emotions, communicate effectively and renegotiate roles and responsibilities to accommodate the demands of treatment (Kazak et al, 2004;Marcus, 2012). While most families are resilient to these challenges (Van Schoors et al, 2015), children in poorly functioning families who struggle with these demands may be at greater risk for adjustment problems (e.g., Long, Marsland & Alderfer, 2013;Myers et al, 2014). This key principle is embedded within various family-systems models often applied to chronic illness populations.…”
Section: Associations Between Family Functioning and Child Adjustmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While various reviews have summarized the impact of pediatric cancer on family functioning and/or child adjustment Long & Marsland, 2011;Pai et al, 2007;Van Schoors et al, 2015), to date, there are no known systematic reviews or meta-analyses that summarize the empirical evidence investigating associations between family functioning and child adjustment to pediatric cancer. The primary aim of this paper is to fill that gap by providing an analysis, summary and commentary on the current evidence regarding associations between the functioning of the family as a whole and child adjustment to pediatric cancer.…”
Section: Model Of Stress and Copingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…How to integrate interventions targeting family-level versus individual-level resources in the context of serious illness remains unclear. In fact, family-based efforts to improve resilience in medical settings are routinely recommended (Hilliard, McQuaid, Nabors, & Hood, 2015; Van Schoors, Caes, Verhofstadt, Goubert, & Alderfer, 2015), yet to our knowledge, none exist.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%