4.6 Article

Acceptability and feasibility of an e-mental health intervention for parents of childhood cancer survivors: Cascade

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 2685-2694

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3077-6

Keywords

Cancer and oncology; Coping skills and adjustment; Parents; Computer applications/eHealth

Funding

  1. Cancer Australia [APP1065428]
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [APP1067501]
  3. Cancer Institute of New South Wales [11/ECF/3-43, 14/ECF/1-11]
  4. Kids with Cancer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Cascade: an online, group-based, cognitive behavioral therapy intervention, delivered live by a psychologist, to assist parents of children who have completed cancer treatment. Methods Forty-seven parents were randomized to Cascade (n = 25) or a 6-month waitlist (n = 22). Parents completed questionnaires at baseline, 1-2 weeks and 6 months post-intervention. Thirty parents completed full evaluations of the Cascade program (n = 21 randomized to Cascade, n = 9 completed Cascade post-waitlist). Results Ninety-six percent of Cascade participants completed the intervention (n = 24/25). Eighty percent of parents completed every questionnaire (mean completion time 25 min (SD = 12)). Cascade was described as at least somewhat helpful by all parents. None rated Cascade as very/quite burdensome. Parents reported that the online format was easy to use (n = 28, 93.3 %), I learnt new skills (n = 28, 93.3 %), and I enjoyed talking to others (n = 29, 96.7 %). Peer-to-peer benefits were highlighted by good group cohesion scores. Conclusions Cascade is highly acceptable and feasible. Its online delivery mechanism may address inequities in post-treatment support for parents, a particularly acute concern for rural/remote families. Future research needs to establish the efficacy of the intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available