Definition and improvement of the concept and tools of a psychosocial intervention program for parents in pediatric oncology: a mixed-methods feasibility study conducted with parents and healthcare professionals.

Intervention development Mixed methods Parents Pediatric cancer Psychosocial intervention Supportive care

Journal

Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 03 07 2018
accepted: 24 01 2019
entrez: 19 2 2019
pubmed: 19 2 2019
medline: 19 2 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Studies have shown that supporting parents in pediatric oncology reduces family distress following a cancer diagnosis. Manualized programs for parents have therefore been developed to reduce family distress. However, these programs have limitations that need to be improved, such as better defining programs' procedures, developing interventions focusing on parents' conjugal relationship, conducting rigorous evaluations of implementation, and proposing adaptations to various cultural dimensions. According to the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model for the development of behavioral intervention, we improved these limitations and developed TAKING BACK CONTROL TOGETHER, a six in-person intervention sessions to support parents of children with cancer by taking the active components of two programs: Bright IDEAS and SCCIP. Referring to the redesign phase of the ORBIT model, this study aims to refine the definition of this program's design by interviewing parents and healthcare professionals. In order to refine the program, we used a sequential mixed-methods study. Parents and healthcare professionals first completed questionnaires assessing the program, and then discussed its limitations, benefits, and areas for improvement in group and/or individual interviews. We performed a descriptive thematic content analysis of the qualitative data from the open-ended questions (questionnaires and interviews) with NVivo 11 to categorize recommendations for the program refinement. The results showed that components seemed pertinent to final users. The main areas needing improvement were the level of complexity and understandability of the parent manual, the possibility to choose the place and time of the intervention, and the lack of ethnic/cultural diversity. Changes to the program were made accordingly. It is necessary to include end-users when developing complex intervention programs designed for vulnerable populations and sensitive clinical contexts. Following the present refinement, we now have a treatment package, which is safe and acceptable for the target population and has a better chance of yielding a clinically significant benefit for users in a future pilot study.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Studies have shown that supporting parents in pediatric oncology reduces family distress following a cancer diagnosis. Manualized programs for parents have therefore been developed to reduce family distress. However, these programs have limitations that need to be improved, such as better defining programs' procedures, developing interventions focusing on parents' conjugal relationship, conducting rigorous evaluations of implementation, and proposing adaptations to various cultural dimensions. According to the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model for the development of behavioral intervention, we improved these limitations and developed TAKING BACK CONTROL TOGETHER, a six in-person intervention sessions to support parents of children with cancer by taking the active components of two programs: Bright IDEAS and SCCIP. Referring to the redesign phase of the ORBIT model, this study aims to refine the definition of this program's design by interviewing parents and healthcare professionals.
METHODS METHODS
In order to refine the program, we used a sequential mixed-methods study. Parents and healthcare professionals first completed questionnaires assessing the program, and then discussed its limitations, benefits, and areas for improvement in group and/or individual interviews. We performed a descriptive thematic content analysis of the qualitative data from the open-ended questions (questionnaires and interviews) with NVivo 11 to categorize recommendations for the program refinement.
RESULTS RESULTS
The results showed that components seemed pertinent to final users. The main areas needing improvement were the level of complexity and understandability of the parent manual, the possibility to choose the place and time of the intervention, and the lack of ethnic/cultural diversity. Changes to the program were made accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
It is necessary to include end-users when developing complex intervention programs designed for vulnerable populations and sensitive clinical contexts. Following the present refinement, we now have a treatment package, which is safe and acceptable for the target population and has a better chance of yielding a clinically significant benefit for users in a future pilot study.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30774970
doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0407-8
pii: 407
pmc: PMC6366012
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

20

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

DO is currently leading a research project as part of his postdoctoral fellowship which investigates the development and evaluation of an intervention program for parents in pediatric oncology. DO, KP, RR and SS designed the intervention program and conducted the preliminary evaluations. SS is the project director.The CHU Saint-Justine ethics committee approved the study. Committee’s reference number: 2017-1539.Not applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Références

Fam Process. 1999 Summer;38(2):175-91
pubmed: 10407719
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2002 Apr;23(2):77-86
pubmed: 11943969
Fam Process. 2004 Jun;43(2):195-208
pubmed: 15603503
Behav Modif. 2006 Sep;30(5):571-97
pubmed: 16894231
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 May;50(5):1047-51
pubmed: 17914734
J Pediatr Psychol. 2008 Jun;33(5):536-46
pubmed: 17962337
J Pediatr Psychol. 2008 Aug;33(7):694-706
pubmed: 18287109
Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:525-48
pubmed: 18729724
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
J Pediatr Psychol. 2009 Jun;34(5):551-63
pubmed: 19091804
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012 Apr;34(3):194-9
pubmed: 22441710
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr 1;31(10):1329-35
pubmed: 23358975
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Jun;167(6):537-43
pubmed: 23545569
Health Psychol. 2015 Oct;34(10):971-82
pubmed: 25642841
Psychooncology. 2015 Sep;24(9):1152-8
pubmed: 25728688
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 Jul;25(4):616-37
pubmed: 26354003
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015 Dec;62 Suppl 5:S419-24
pubmed: 26397836
Qual Health Res. 2015 Nov 27;:null
pubmed: 26613970
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Jun;24(6):2685-94
pubmed: 26781620
J Pediatr Nurs. 2016 Jul-Aug;31(4):e262-70
pubmed: 26860879
Psychooncology. 2017 Oct;26(10):1660-1666
pubmed: 27278682
Internet Interv. 2016 Jan 06;4:1-10
pubmed: 30135786
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 7;13(9):e0203435
pubmed: 30192798
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1996 Mar;37(3):321-8
pubmed: 8707915

Auteurs

David Ogez (D)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
2Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Claude-Julie Bourque (CJ)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
3Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Katherine Péloquin (K)

2Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Rebeca Ribeiro (R)

2Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Laurence Bertout (L)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.

Daniel Curnier (D)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
4Department of Kinesiology, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Simon Drouin (S)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.

Caroline Laverdière (C)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
3Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Valérie Marcil (V)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
5Department of Nutrition, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Émélie Rondeau (É)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.

Daniel Sinnett (D)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
3Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Serge Sultan (S)

Sainte-Justine University Health Center, Chaussée de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, 3175, Montréal, Québec H3T 1C5 Canada.
2Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
3Department of Pediatrics, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Classifications MeSH