Dissemination of an evidence‐based behavioral intervention to alleviate distress in caregivers of children recently diagnosed with cancer: Bright IDEAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Four multisite randomized clinical trials of > 1400 caregivers of children newly diagnosed with cancer showed that the Bright IDEAS (BI) paradigm of problem-solving skills training is an acceptable and efficacious approach to alleviating the high levels of distress they experience. To facilitate providing evidence-based caregiver support as recommended in the pediatric oncology standards of care, the project described here was designed to disseminate BI to 200 psychosocial professionals. PROCEDURE: We partnered with the Children's Oncology Group (COG), Association of Pediatric Oncology Social Workers (APOSW), Association of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nurses (APHON), and special interest group in pediatric hematology/oncology of the Society for Pediatric Psychology (SPP). Membership surveys revealed substantial enthusiasm for training in BI. We structured training to include review of the evidence base for BI, role plays, and strategies for implementation at individual sites. Four conference calls designed to enhance implementation were held one, two, three, and five months after training. RESULTS: Ten 1.5-day workshops were held in conjunction with annual meetings of COG, APOSW, APHON, and SPP. A total of 209 psychosocial clinicians from 134 sites were trained. Evaluations were highly favorable. Trainees had provided BI to 545 individuals as of the last conference call. CONCLUSIONS: Initial dissemination goals were met. BI is now available at numerous pediatric oncology centers, but it has not become part of routine care. Future work focused on implementation might consider top-down approaches that include direct communication with pediatric oncologists and hospital leaders about the benefits of incorporating this evidence-based intervention systemically.
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 | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".