Search

Background: This study was aimed at assessing fathers' and mothers' distress 6 months after a pediatric cancer diagnosis and at determining whether this is related to the level of family psychosocial risk 1 month after the diagnosis.Methods: A sample of 192 families completed the electronic Psychosocial Assessment Tool (ePAT) 1 month after the diagnosis. At 6 months after the diagnosis, 119 mothers and 98 fathers completed the Distress Thermometer for Parents (DT-P; of which n=132 had also completed the ePAT at baseline). The DT-P consists of a thermometer score ranging from 0 to 10 (with a score ≥ 4 indicating clinical distress), problem domains (total, practical, social, emotional, physical, cognitive, and parenting for children < 2 years old and for children ≥ 2 years old), and a desire for a referral. The DT-P scores of mothers and fathers were compared with the scores of a reference group of 671 mothers and 463 fathers with healthy children. Within the pediatric cancer group, the DT-P scores of families with elevated total ePAT-scores were compared with the DT-P scores of parents with universal ePAT scores.Results: Parents of children with cancer more often reported clinical distress on the DT-P than parents of healthy children (fathers, 59.2% vs 32.3%; P < .001; mothers, 63% vs 42.3%; P < .001) and reported more problems on all DT-P domains (P < .001 to P = .042) except for the parenting domain for children < 2 years old. Furthermore, the ePAT predicted parental distress 6 months after the diagnosis because parents with elevated ePAT scores reported more problems than parents with universal scores on the DT-P thermometer and most of the DT-P domains (P < .001 to P = 1.00).Conclusions: Initial ePAT risk scores at diagnosis are predictive of future mean levels of parental distress. Cancer 2018;124:381-90. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) is a brief family screener, identifying families at universal or elevated risk for psychosocial problems. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and usability of the electronic PAT (ePAT) in pediatric cancer care.Methods: Eighty-six parents of newly diagnosed children with cancer (0-18 years) agreed to participate and registered at the website www.hetklikt.nu (58%). Seventy-five families completed the ePAT at approximately 1 month post-diagnosis. Answers were transformed into an electronic PROfile (PAT ePROfile) and fed back to the psychosocial team. Team members completed a semi-structured evaluation questionnaire. Feasibility was measured as the percentage of website registrations, completed ePATs, and PAT ePROfiles reviewed or discussed by the team. Usability included perceived match of the PAT ePROfile with the team's own risk estimation, perceived added value, and perceived actions undertaken as a result of the PAT ePROfile.Results: Feasibility was 70% for website registration, 87% for completed ePATs, 85% for PAT ePROfile reviewing, and 67% for ePROfile discussion. Team members reported that the PAT ePROfile matched with their own risk estimation (M = 7.92, SD = 1.88) and did not provide additional information (M = 2.18, SD = 2.30). According to the team, actions were undertaken for 25% of the families as a result of the PAT ePROfile. More actions were undertaken for families with elevated risk scores compared to universal risk scores (p = .007).Conclusions: Implementation of the ePAT seems generally feasible, but it is not always clear how this screener adds to current clinical practice. Strategies should be developed together with team members to improve quick exchange of ePAT results and allocate care according to the needs of the families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) was developed to screen for psychosocial risk in families of a child diagnosed with cancer. The current study is the first describing the cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity, and usability of the PAT in an European country (Dutch translation).Methods: A total of 117 families (response rate 59%) of newly diagnosed children with cancer completed the PAT2.0 and validation measures.Results: Acceptable reliability was obtained for the PAT total score (α = .72) and majority of subscales (0.50-0.82). Two subscales showed inadequate internal consistency (Social Support α = .19; Family Beliefs α = .20). Validity and usability were adequate. Of the families, 66% scored low (Universal), 29% medium (Targeted), and 5% high (Clinical) risk.Conclusions: This study confirms the cross-cultural applicability, reliability, and validity of the PAT total score. Reliability left room for improvement on subscale level. Future research should indicate whether the PAT can be used to provide cost-effective care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives To investigate the assessment of psychosocial problems in children with type 1 diabetes by means of clinical estimations made by nurses and paediatricians and by using standardised questionnaires. Background Although children with type 1 diabetes and their parents show increased risk for psychosocial problems, standardised assessment of these problems lacks in diabetes care. Design By comparing these different modes of assessment, using a cross-sectional design, information about the additional value of using standardised questionnaires is provided. Methods Participants were 110 children with type 1 diabetes (aged 4-16), their parents, and healthcare professionals. Children filled out the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Diabetes Module. Parents filled out the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire parent-report and the Parenting Stress Index. Independently, nurses and paediatricians filled out a short questionnaire, which assessed their clinical estimations of the children's psychosocial problems and quality of life, and parents' levels of parenting stress. Reports of children and parents were compared to clinical estimations. Results Children in our sample showed more psychosocial problems and lower health-related quality of life than their healthy peers. In approximately half of the children, dichotomous estimations by healthcare professionals and dichotomised reports by patients and parents were in agreement. In 10% of the children, no psychosocial problems were present according to professionals' estimations, although patients and parents-reported psychosocial problems. In 40%, psychosocial problems were present according to professionals' estimations, although parents and patients did not report psychosocial problems. Conclusion Children with type 1 diabetes show more psychosocial problems than healthy children. Professionals seem to tend towards overestimating psychosocial problems. Relevance to clinical practice Extending the assessment of psychosocial problems with routine screening on patient-reported outcomes, using validated questionnaires, could be of additional value in tailoring care to the needs of the individual child and parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Raising a child with type 1 diabetes (T1D) means combining the demands of the disease management with everyday parenting, which is associated with increased levels of distress. A Web-based patient portal, Sugarsquare, was developed to support parents, by providing online parent-professional communication, online peer support and online disease information.Objective: The first aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in Dutch parents of a child with T1D. The second aim was to assess the feasibility of implementing Sugarsquare in clinical practice.Methods: The parents of 105 children (N=105) with T1D below the age of 13 participated in a 6-month multicenter randomized controlled feasibility trial. They were randomly assigned to an experimental (n=54, usual care and Sugarsquare) or a control group (n=51, usual care). Attrition rates and user statistics were gathered to evaluate feasibility of the trial and implementation. To determine potential efficacy, the parenting stress index (PSI-SF) was assessed at baseline (T0) and after 6 months (T1).Results: Of a potential population of parents of 445 children, 189 were willing to participate (enrollment refusal=57.5%, n=256), 142 filled in the baseline questionnaire (baseline attrition rate=25%, n=47), and 105 also filled in the questionnaire at T1 (post randomization attrition rate during follow-up=26%, n=32). As such, 24% of the potential population participated. Analysis in the experimental group (n=54) revealed a total of 32 (59%) unique users, divided into 12 (38%) frequent users, 9 (28%) incidental users, and 11 (34%) low-frequent users. Of the total of 44 professionals, 34 (77%) logged in, and 32 (73%) logged in repeatedly. Analysis of the user statistics in the experimental group further showed high practicability and integration in all users, moderate acceptability and demand in parents, and high acceptability and demand in health care professionals. Baseline parenting stress index scores were related to the parents' frequency of logging on (ρ=.282, P=.03) and page-views (ρ=.304, P=.01). No significant differences in change in parenting stress between experimental and control group were found (F3,101=.49, P=.49).Conclusions: The trial can be considered feasible, considering the average enrollment refusal rate, baseline attrition rate and postrandomization attrition rate, compared to other eHealth studies, although lower than hypothesized. Implementing Sugarsquare in clinical practice was partly feasible, given moderate demand and acceptability in parent users and lack of potential efficacy. Parents who reported higher levels of parenting stress used Sugarsquare more often than other parents, although Sugarsquare did not reduce parenting stress. These results indicate that Web-based interventions are a suitable way of providing parents of children with T1D with additional support. Future studies should determine how Sugarsquare could reduce parenting stress, for instance by adding targeted interventions. Factors potentially contributing to successful implementation are suggested.Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register Number: NTR3643; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=3643 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qihOVCi6). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]