Facing spousal cancer during child-rearing years: The short-term effects of the Cancer-PEPSONE programme-a single-center randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objective: To measure the short‐term effects of the Cancer‐PEPSONE programme (CPP) on the partners' received and perceived social support, psychological distress, and quality of life (QOL), as well as explore the role of received social support as a mediator of the intervention effects. Methods: Open single‐center randomized controlled trial, trial number 15982171(ISRCTN). Eligible participants were the partners of cancer patients who were concomitantly caring for minors (the well parents). The sample consisted of 35 participants randomly allocated to receive either intervention (n = 17) or support as usual (n = 18). At the 3‐month follow‐up (approximately 1 month after intervention), 24 continued to participate (intervention n = 13, control n = 11). The intervention group selected supporters to participate in CPP (N = 130). Data were obtained using validated questionnaire. Results: The multivariate analysis of covariance revealed significant intervention effects (P = .03, η 2p = 0.42), with main effects on received and perceived social support. A mediational analysis suggested that CPP may have indirect effects on QOL through received social support. Conclusions: Even though the long‐term effects are yet to be studied, CPP seems to increase social support for the well parents' short term, which in turn may improve their QOL. Given the study's low sample size, further replications in larger samples are required.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
10 studies described how the patients' disease process has affected the social interaction of caregivers, who manifest great difficulty in reconciling their role as caregivers and the development of other daily activities, highlighting deterioration of working conditions.
“With regard to social aspects, 10 studies [24,25,27,31,32,41,49,53,54,55] described how the patients’ disease process has affected the social interaction of caregivers, who manifest a great difficulty in reconciling their role as caregivers and the development of other daily activities, highlighting the deterioration of working conditions.”
From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured10 studies emphasized the need of enhancing social support by reinforcing support networks and facilitating access to support groups and associations.
“Among the strategies described, 10 studies [28,29,31,32,36,39,41,50,54,57] emphasized the need of enhancing social support by means of reinforcing the support networks and facilitating access to support groups and associations.”
From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
The indexed passage labelled “943 kB” (page unavailable) describes Cancer-PEPSONE as an intervention involving families and their social networks, and reports increased social support after one month. This supports reinforcing support networks, but the available passages do not describe facilitating access to support groups or associations. The count of 10 studies is the citing authors’ synthesis, not a finding attributed to this individual trial. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTen studies did not describe average age.
“However, it must be highlighted that 10 studies did not describe average age [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31].”
From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
The indexed copy identifies the cited trial as Paper 2 in a doctoral thesis and says the article is not available there. The available study summary reports the sample size but does not say whether the trial reported participants’ average age. Searches for mean age and demographic characteristics did not resolve that point. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTwo studies in the review described a larger number of male caregivers than female caregivers.
“However, there were two studies that described a larger number of male caregivers with respect to women [28,31].”
From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
The available passage describing the study sample (section labeled “943 kB”; no page given) says it included 35 well parents caring for minor children, but gives no breakdown by sex. Searches for male and female caregivers, men and women, and participant sex distribution found no passage establishing whether men outnumbered women in this study. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971 · see citing works
Interventions with Family Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Northouse, L. L., Katapodi, M. C., Song, L., Zhang, L., & Mood, D. W. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20081 · Cited by 857 · see citing works
Kroenke, C. H., Quesenberry, C., Kwan, M. L., Sweeney, C., Castillo, A., & Caan, B. J. (2013) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2253-8 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
The Crisis Support Scale: psychometric qualities and further validation
Elklit, A., Schmidt Pedersen, S., & Jind, L. (2001) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00220-8 · Cited by 141 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The Crisis Support Scale consists of 7 items rated on a Likert‐type scale.(25) With the 1 negative item reversed (item No.”
BackgroundMethod
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cheng, Q., Xu, B., Ng, M. S. N., Duan, Y., & So, W. K. W. (2022) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104162 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review
Guerra-Martín, M. D., Casado-Espinosa, M. D. R., Gavira-López, Y., Holgado-Castro, C., López-Latorre, I., & Borrallo-Riego, Á. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20021570 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“With respect to the strategies to improve the quality of life of caregivers, different studies have pointed out the need of promoting social support, facilitating the access to support networks [28,29,31,32,36,39,41,50,54,57].”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Senneseth, M., Dyregrov, A., Laberg, J., Matthiesen, S. B., Pereira, M., & Hauken, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Senter for Krisepsykologi (NO)
- BI Norwegian Business School (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Senneseth, Mette
- Venue
- Psycho-Oncology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-01-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1541-1547
- ISSN
- 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1611
- OpenAlex
- W2559865847
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 3.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Keywords
- partners of cancer patients, social support, perceived social support, psychological distress, quality of life, caregiver burden, intervention effects, parenting
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Child, Child Rearing, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Help Groups, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Caregivers, Spouses, Resilience, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
