Résultats de recherche

1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The study’s main objective was to refine TAKING BACK CONTROL TOGETHER [an intervention program] following interviews with end-users: pediatric oncology healthcare professionals and parents of children with cancer. Specifically, this study aimed to [...] evaluate and [...] provide suggestions to improve the program’s relevance, acceptability, material, practical implementation, and technique procedures.» (p. 4)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
The research team «recruited a convenience sample of healthcare professionals and parents through internal email and online social media, respectively.» (p. 4) «Six of the 22 healthcare professionals who were invited agreed to participate in this study. […] Twelve parents responded to the invitation to participate in this study. Of these responses, six parents […] who had lived through their child’s cancer experience agreed to participate and were included in the study.» (p. 6)

Instruments :
- Questionnaires
- Guide d’entretien directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«In line with recommendations on program development, [the authors] refined the design of TAKING BACK CONTROL TOGETHER, a manualized intervention program to reduce parental distress in pediatric oncology.» (p. 10) The authors «identified strengths and limitations, and collected suggestions for modifications of the intervention. The results support the pertinence of the intervention. The concept of the program and its components aim to restore control through individual sessions that offer PSST [problem-solving skills training] and maintain unity within parents’ couples by reinforcing dyadic coping and marital communication during the couple sessions. The results also highlighted benefits such as offering emotional support, and an opportunity to take back long-term control, i.e., well beyond the oncological treatments. The benefits also concerned the relevance of offering support for parents with high levels of distress while including single-parent families; and the program’s manualized aspect, which promotes its transmission to healthcare professionals and parents alike. […] Participants highlighted some limitations, including the fact that this intervention could be an additional burden for some, that the wording of the parent manual used a writing style difficult to understand, and was probably too detailed. Participants also questioned the feasibility of meeting parents at home for the couple sessions.» (p. 10)

1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«[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)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
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 :
Réflexion critique

3. Résumé

«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)