Cited by 194Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFamily Support in IllnessPalliative and Oncologic Care

Identifying Psychosocial Risk Indicative of Subsequent Resource Use in Families of Newly Diagnosed Pediatric Oncology Patients

Kazak, Anne E., Cant, M. Catherine, Jensen, Merritt M., McSherry, Mary, Rourke, Mary T., Hwang, Wei-Ting, Alderfer, Melissa A., Beele, David +2 more·2003·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: The primary purpose of this prospective study was to identify the level of risk for psychosocial distress in families of children newly diagnosed with cancer. Additional study aims were to examine concordance among family and staff reports of psychosocial risk, changes in risk status over time, and to predict the use of psychosocial resources during the first months of treatment. Patients and Methods: Caregivers of 125 children newly diagnosed with cancer completed the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) at diagnosis (t 1) and 3 to 6 months later (t 2). Primary oncologists and nurses completed an analogous measure of perceived family psychosocial risk at t 1 and t 2. At t 2, oncology social workers reported types and intensity of psychosocial interventions provided. Results: The PAT identified three subsets of families who presented with increasing levels of psychosocial risk at diagnosis. In general, there was moderate concordance among family, oncologist, and nurse reports of psychosocial risk. PAT scores at t 1 predicted t 2 PAT scores and psychosocial resource use at t 2 beyond demographic or disease factors. Conclusion: A brief screening tool (PAT) is valuable in identifying psychosocial risk factors at diagnosis and is predictive of later use of psychosocial resources. As a next step in this research, the development of psychosocial interventions to match family risk level may be an effective and cost-efficient approach to working with families to address their concerns and promote short- and long-term adjustment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2003.12.156

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Kazak, A. E., Cant, M. C., Jensen, M. M., McSherry, M., Rourke, M. T., Hwang, W.-T., Alderfer, M. A., Beele, D., Simms, S., & Lange, B. J.
Affiliations
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2003-09-01
Volume
21
Issue
17
Pages
3220-3225
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2151697274
Cited by
194
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
childhood cancer, psychosocial distress, family caregivers, psychosocial risk screening, Psychosocial Assessment Tool, risk prediction, oncology social work, psychosocial interventions, family adjustment
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Health Services, Child, Preschool, Family, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Social Support, Time Factors, Sickness Impact Profile

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