Pilot randomized psychosocial trial of a screening intervention in pediatric oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial screening is a standard of care in pediatric oncology, but there is limited information about how to intervene after screening. This pilot trial aimed to determine feasibility of the novel Enhanced Psychosocial Screening Intervention (EPSI) and explore its preliminary efficacy outcomes. We examined rates of recruitment, retention, intervention acceptability, and monthly distress screening completion, as well as exploratory efficacy outcomes (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: depression, anxiety and fatigue; distress thermometer, pain and sleep). METHODS: Parallel-group randomized pilot trial: Caregiver-youth (10-17 years at enrollment, newly diagnosed with cancer) dyads were randomly allocated to either EPSI or standard care with 1:1 ratio allocation. EPSI consists of having a Psychosocial Navigator who shares screening results conducted near diagnosis and monthly for one year with treating teams and families, and provides recommendations tailored to screening results. RESULTS: Enrollment rate was 54% (38 dyads); retention was 90% and acceptability 86% (caregivers) and 76% (youth). Exploratory symptoms of depression, anxiety, distress and fatigue outcomes consistently improved mainly for caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest EPSI is feasible and acceptable and exploratory mental and physical efficacy outcomes are promising for use in a future confirmatory multisite efficacy trial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".