Search

Contains fulltext : 182347.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) was developed to screen for psychosocial risk, aimed to be supportive in directing psychosocial care to families of a child with cancer. This study aimed to determine (i) the match between PAT risk score and provided psychosocial care with healthcare professionals blind to outcome of PAT assessment, and (ii) the match between PAT risk score and team risk estimation. METHODS: Eighty-three families of children with cancer from four pediatric oncology centers in the Netherlands participated (59% response rate). The PAT and team risk estimation was assessed at diagnosis (M = 40.2 days, SD = 14.1 days), and the content of provided psychosocial care in the 5-month period thereafter resulting in basic or specialized care. RESULTS: According to the PAT, 65% of families were defined as having low (universal), 30% medium (targeted), and 5% high (clinical) risk for developing psychosocial problems. Thirty percent of patients from universal group got basic psychosocial care, 63% got specialized care, and 7% did not get any care. Fourteen percent of the families at risk got basic care, 86% got specialized care. Team risk estimations and PAT risk scores matched with 58% of the families. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that families at risk, based on standardized risk assessment with the PAT, received more specialized care than families without risk. However, still 14% of the families with high risks only received basic care, and 63% of the families with standard risk got specialized care. Standardized risk assessment can be used as part of comprehensive care delivery, complementing the team.

Contains fulltext : 189900.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 182347.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) was developed to screen for psychosocial risk, aimed to be supportive in directing psychosocial care to families of a child with cancer. This study aimed to determine (i) the match between PAT risk score and provided psychosocial care with healthcare professionals blind to outcome of PAT assessment, and (ii) the match between PAT risk score and team risk estimation. METHODS: Eighty-three families of children with cancer from four pediatric oncology centers in the Netherlands participated (59% response rate). The PAT and team risk estimation was assessed at diagnosis (M = 40.2 days, SD = 14.1 days), and the content of provided psychosocial care in the 5-month period thereafter resulting in basic or specialized care. RESULTS: According to the PAT, 65% of families were defined as having low (universal), 30% medium (targeted), and 5% high (clinical) risk for developing psychosocial problems. Thirty percent of patients from universal group got basic psychosocial care, 63% got specialized care, and 7% did not get any care. Fourteen percent of the families at risk got basic care, 86% got specialized care. Team risk estimations and PAT risk scores matched with 58% of the families. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that families at risk, based on standardized risk assessment with the PAT, received more specialized care than families without risk. However, still 14% of the families with high risks only received basic care, and 63% of the families with standard risk got specialized care. Standardized risk assessment can be used as part of comprehensive care delivery, complementing the team.

Contains fulltext : 189900.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 182347.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) was developed to screen for psychosocial risk, aimed to be supportive in directing psychosocial care to families of a child with cancer. This study aimed to determine (i) the match between PAT risk score and provided psychosocial care with healthcare professionals blind to outcome of PAT assessment, and (ii) the match between PAT risk score and team risk estimation. METHODS: Eighty-three families of children with cancer from four pediatric oncology centers in the Netherlands participated (59% response rate). The PAT and team risk estimation was assessed at diagnosis (M = 40.2 days, SD = 14.1 days), and the content of provided psychosocial care in the 5-month period thereafter resulting in basic or specialized care. RESULTS: According to the PAT, 65% of families were defined as having low (universal), 30% medium (targeted), and 5% high (clinical) risk for developing psychosocial problems. Thirty percent of patients from universal group got basic psychosocial care, 63% got specialized care, and 7% did not get any care. Fourteen percent of the families at risk got basic care, 86% got specialized care. Team risk estimations and PAT risk scores matched with 58% of the families. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that families at risk, based on standardized risk assessment with the PAT, received more specialized care than families without risk. However, still 14% of the families with high risks only received basic care, and 63% of the families with standard risk got specialized care. Standardized risk assessment can be used as part of comprehensive care delivery, complementing the team.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychosocial characteristics of children and parents as predictors and moderators of the effect of a group intervention for children with chronic illness and their parents. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial were used, including 194 children (8-18 years) who were assigned to a child-only intervention, a parent-child intervention, or a wait-list control group. Longitudinal multilevel regression analyses were used to test effects on change in parent and child reported internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. RESULTS: For children with a more disengaged coping style or lower self-worth and for children who experienced a more secure parent-child relationship, the parent-child intervention was more effective than the child-only intervention in reducing behavior problems. CONCLUSIONS: Children who are more "at risk" appear to gain more from participating in an intervention, especially if their parents are involved as well. However, the benefit of parents' involvement may depend on the quality of the parent-child relationship.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychosocial characteristics of children and parents as predictors and moderators of the effect of a group intervention for children with chronic illness and their parents. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial were used, including 194 children (8-18 years) who were assigned to a child-only intervention, a parent-child intervention, or a wait-list control group. Longitudinal multilevel regression analyses were used to test effects on change in parent and child reported internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. RESULTS: For children with a more disengaged coping style or lower self-worth and for children who experienced a more secure parent-child relationship, the parent-child intervention was more effective than the child-only intervention in reducing behavior problems. CONCLUSIONS: Children who are more "at risk" appear to gain more from participating in an intervention, especially if their parents are involved as well. However, the benefit of parents' involvement may depend on the quality of the parent-child relationship.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychosocial characteristics of children and parents as predictors and moderators of the effect of a group intervention for children with chronic illness and their parents. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial were used, including 194 children (8-18 years) who were assigned to a child-only intervention, a parent-child intervention, or a wait-list control group. Longitudinal multilevel regression analyses were used to test effects on change in parent and child reported internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. RESULTS: For children with a more disengaged coping style or lower self-worth and for children who experienced a more secure parent-child relationship, the parent-child intervention was more effective than the child-only intervention in reducing behavior problems. CONCLUSIONS: Children who are more "at risk" appear to gain more from participating in an intervention, especially if their parents are involved as well. However, the benefit of parents' involvement may depend on the quality of the parent-child relationship.