Cited by 34Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and carePalliative and Oncologic Care

Implementing a Clinic-Based Telehealth Support Service (FamilyStrong) for Family Caregivers of Individuals with Grade IV Brain Tumors

Open access
Dionne-Odom, J. Nicholas, Williams, Grant R., Warren, Paula P., Tims, Sheri, Huang, Chao-Hui S., Taylor, Richard A., Ledbetter, Leslie, Lever, Trevor +10 more·2021·Journal of Palliative Medicine

Abstract

Background: Nearly 3 million U.S. family caregivers support someone with cancer. However, oncology clinic-based service lines that proactively screen, assess, and support cancer caregivers are nearly nonexistent. Objective: To examine first-year experiences of a nurse-led clinic-based telehealth support service (FamilyStrong) for family caregivers of patients with recently diagnosed grade IV brain tumors. Methods: This is a retrospective evaluation of operational outcomes from initial implementation of the FamilyStrong Service, developed in partnership with Caregiver and Bereavement Support Services at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and the UAB Center for Palliative and Supportive Care. From August 2018 to December 2019, 53 family caregivers were proactively identified and enrolled by a palliative care nurse, working approximately one day/week, who performed monthly caregiver distress thermometer screenings by phone and provided emotional, educational, problem-solving, and referral support. Results: Enrolled family caregivers were a mean age of 53.5 years and mostly female (62.3%), full- or part-time employed (67.9%), and the patient's spouse/partner (79.3%). Caregivers provided support 6.7 days/week for 11.2 hours/day. The palliative care nurse performed 235 distress screenings and provided support that included 68 documented instances of emotional, problem-solving, and educational support, 41 nurse-facilitated communications with the neuro-oncology team about…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/jpm.2020.0178

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dionne-Odom, J. N., Williams, G. R., Warren, P. P., Tims, S., Huang, C.-H. S., Taylor, R. A., Ledbetter, L., Lever, T., Mitchell, K., Thompson, M., Dosse, C., Engler, S., Holmes, A., Connelley, B., Hicks, J., Bakitas, M. A., Nabors, B., & Tucker, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Dionne-Odom, J. Nicholas
Venue
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Published
2021-03-01
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
347-353
ISSN
  • 1096-6218 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7740
OpenAlex
W3045822422
Cited by
34
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3
FWCI
6.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (K08CA234225, R37CA252868)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R00NR015903)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
family caregivers, nurse-led clinics, caregiver support, palliative care, advance care planning, neuro-oncology, caregiver burden
MeSH terms
Brain Neoplasms, Family, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Palliative Care, Retrospective Studies, Caregivers, Telemedicine

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