A randomized controlled trial of a group intervention for siblings of children with cancer: <scp>C</scp>hanges in symptoms of anxiety in siblings and caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effects of a group intervention-Siblings Coping Together (SibCT)-on siblings' and caregivers' anxiety symptoms compared to controls, and potential moderators. METHODS: Seventy healthy siblings of children on or off treatment (7-16 y old, 41 males) participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 2 arms/groups: SibCT (n = 41) and an attention control (CG) (n = 34). Both groups had eight 2-hour weekly sessions. EG followed SibCT's educational, social, and problem-solving activities. CG had planned games and crafts. Siblings and caregivers self-reported on anxiety symptoms at baseline, intervention end, and 3 months later. Multivariable mixed model analyses examined the intervention effect over time, and potential moderators (gender, on/off ill child's treatment). RESULTS: No main effects of group or time were found in sibling scores. A group × gender interaction (P < .05) indicated that in the intervention group female siblings reported less total anxiety symptoms than male siblings, with no significant gender differences in the control group. Caregivers' total anxiety symptoms declined over time (P < .02). A group × on/off treatment interaction in physiological/panic subscale (P < .03) indicated that when ill child was on treatment, caregivers of siblings in SibCT reported less anxiety compared with caregivers of CG. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear SibCT intervention effect. SibCT may benefit female siblings, and caregivers whose ill child is on active treatment. Contextual factors (gender) seem to influence psychosocial intervention in this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".