Depression and Quality of Life in Siblings of Children With Cancer After Group Intervention Participation: A Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to (1) assess the effects of a group intervention called Siblings Coping Together on siblings' psychosocial adjustment compared with controls; (2) explore the potential moderating effect of siblings' gender; and (3) investigate whether the intervention was more effective for siblings with more depressive symptoms at baseline. Methods: This was a repeated measure, parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two groups. Seventy-five healthy siblings (7-16 years old, 41 males) participated. Both groups had 8 weekly 2-hr sessions. Intervention sessions had psychoeducational, social, and therapeutic problem-solving goals taught through games and crafts (n = 41); controls (n = 34) had games and crafts only. Self-reported symptoms of depression (Children's Depression Inventory, CDI) and self- and proxy-reported quality of life (QOL) (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, PedsQL) were obtained at baseline, postintervention, and 3 months later. Multivariable analyses with a mixed effects model were performed. Results: No significant main group effect or group × time interactions were found for any of the scales assessed. Significant improvement over time was found for total CDI (p < .01) and proxy-reported PedsQL total (p < .001) in both groups, which may have been attributable to the passage of time. Conclusions: No sufficient evidence was obtained for the efficacy of the intervention in the current study. Future research may examine conducting a larger RCT comparing sibling support group to no treatment control group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".