Référence bibliographique 
Ogez, David, Péloquin, Katherine, Bertout, Laurence, Bourque, Claude-Julie, Curnier, Daniel, Drouin, Simon, Laverdière, Caroline, Marcil, Valérie, Ribeiro, Rebeca, Callaci, Melissa, Rondeau, Émélie, Sinnett, Daniel et Sultan, Serge. 2019. «Psychosocial Intervention Programs for Parents of Children with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Comparison of Programs’ Models and Development ». Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, vol. 26, no 4, p. 550-574.
«[T]he current review aimed to synthesize relevant information related to program development phases, make available important information that is often not explicitly mentioned in research to the scientific community, and assist researchers and clinicians in comparing different programs. More specifically, [the authors] aimed to […] identify available programs, […] identify their underlying models, […] evaluate how each program’s interventions can be translated into concrete activities, and […] identify and discuss their development process.» (p. 551)
The authors «conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases. The search was performed for all entries before February 2017 and the four following keywords and their reformulations were used to find relevant articles: “cancer,” “pediatric,” “parents,” and “support intervention”.» (p. 551) In the end, «27 records (20 research articles and seven items found in the grey literature) were selected for this systematic review […].» (p. 553)
Type de traitement des données :
«In this systematic review, [the authors] identified 11 manualized intervention programs designed to support parents whose child suffers from cancer. When describing the different development steps required to define these programs, [the authors] found that most of them appeared to be soundly developed with a high coherence between theories, outcomes, models of change, and component actions. Yet, this critical analysis revealed a limitation in these intervention programs’ definition and implementation. A lack of cultural adaptation and discrepancies between the theory used to understand the primary and mediating outcomes, models of change, and therapeutic actions choices were noted for some programs. [The authors] also observed problems with their implementation, as some authors did not examine programs’ acceptability, social validity, and feasibility.» (p. 568)