Cited by 9Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeCancer survivorship and careFamily Support in Illness

Parent Perspectives after the PRISM-P Randomized Trial: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

Open access
Rosenberg, Abby R., Zhou, Chuan, Bradford, Miranda C., Barton, Krysta, Junkins, Courtney C., Taylor, Mallory, Kross, Erin K., Curtis, J. Randall +2 more·2021·Journal of Palliative Medicine

Abstract

Background: Parents experience high distress following their child's diagnosis of cancer. We previously tested two delivery models (group and one-on-one) of the “Promoting Resilience in Stress Management for Parents” (PRISM-P) intervention in a randomized trial: one-on-one delivery improved resilience and benefit finding at three months when compared to usual care (UC). Objective: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate quantitative and qualitative outcomes at six months. Design: In this single-center, phase 2, parallel, 1:1:1 randomized trial conducted December 2016 to December 2018, English-speaking parents with a 2–24 year-old child diagnosed with new cancer were randomly assigned to UC, one-on-one, or group PRISM-P, a brief, skill-based curriculum targeting stress management, goal setting, cognitive reframing, and meaning making. We collected parent-reported outcomes (resilience, benefit finding, and psychological distress) at baseline and three and six months. We applied linear mixed-effects regression models to examine six-month outcomes among all participants and conducted directed content analyses of exit interviews with the first 12 parents to complete each study arm. Results: The 94 participating parents were median aged 35–38 years and predominantly white, college-educated mothers. At six months, there was no statistically significant difference in parent-reported outcomes. Exit interviews ( n = 36) suggested that PRISM-P was highly valued: 100% of interviewed recipients recommended it for other parents. Most suggested more coaching would help them retain skills, and almost all endorsed a combined one-on-one and group program. Conclusions: Although the PRISM-P benefits observed at three months were not sustained for six months, all interviewed parents found it valuable. Additional opportunities to strengthen and sustain resilience resources include longer follow-up, flexible format, and skill reinforcement. Trial Registration: NCT02998086.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/jpm.2020.0720

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A recent exploration of parents' intervention preferences reported that parents expressed a strong desire for being offered a choice between participating in a group or an individual program, and some parents expressed a strong desire to avoid 'forced' group interaction, with some explicitly stating that they would not attend a group program if that was the only choice.

    “A recent exploration of parents’ intervention preferences also reported that parents expressed a strong desire for being offered a choice between participating in a group or an individual program. Some parents in that study expressed a strong desire to avoid ‘forced’ group interaction, with some explicitly stating that they would not attend a group program if that was the only choice [76].”

    From Providing psychological support to parents of childhood cancer survivors: ‘cascade’ intervention trial results and lessons for the future (2021) · cites this paper as [76]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increasing 'dose' by adding extra modules/boosters or by increasing the amount of experiential practice of key skills has been recommended by other intervention developers.

    “Increasing ‘dose’ by adding extra modules/boosters or by increasing the amount of experiential practice of key skills, has been recommended by other intervention developers [76] and might have increased Cascade’s potency; however, time was already the most cited burden of participation.”

    From Providing psychological support to parents of childhood cancer survivors: ‘cascade’ intervention trial results and lessons for the future (2021) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Discussion recommends ongoing boosters, coaching, and opportunities to practice PRISM-P skills. It does not recommend adding extra modules; the Results report mixed parent views about teaching more than four skills. The cited paper therefore supports the boosters and practice portions, but not the extra-modules portion. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increasing dose might have increased Cascade's potency.

    “Increasing ‘dose’ by adding extra modules/boosters or by increasing the amount of experiential practice of key skills, has been recommended by other intervention developers [76] and might have increased Cascade’s potency; however, time was already the most cited burden of participation.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]19. Pinheiro J, Bates D: Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus, Second Printing. New York, NY: Springer, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. [22]22. Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Survey Nonresponse. New York: Wiley, 1987. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenberg, A. R., Zhou, C., Bradford, M. C., Barton, K., Junkins, C. C., Taylor, M., Kross, E. K., Curtis, J. R., Dionne-Odom, J. N., & Yi-Frazier, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Seattle Children's Research Institute (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Palliative Care and Resilience Research Laboratory, Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Epidemiology, and Analytics in Research Program, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Corresponding author
Rosenberg, Abby R.
Venue
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Published
2021-09-20
Volume
24
Issue
10
Pages
1505-1515
ISSN
  • 1096-6218 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7740
OpenAlex
W3136919991
Cited by
9
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (L40 CA170049)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
parental resilience, benefit finding, psychological distress, childhood cancer, parents of children with cancer, stress management, cognitive reframing, meaning-making, goal setting, group intervention, intervention sustainability, skill retention, exit interviews
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Counseling, Humans, Neoplasms, Parents, Psychotherapy, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult

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