Parental Support Intervention in an Advanced Oncological Context

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorUniversité Libre de Bruxelles

About this trial

This prospective, two-arm randomized trial compares a psycho-educational program to a psycho-educational and experiential program for parents with advanced cancer. These two interventions aim to support parent-child communication about cancer, but we hypothesize that the combined intervention will be more effective for all studied communication variables.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Metastatic cancer, recurrence of cancer or certain types of hematological cancer (chronic disease, acute leukemia, multiple myeloma or lymphoma recurrence)

Have at least one child aged between 10 and 25 years

Wish to benefit from a psychological intervention about communication with their children about cancer or its consequences

Able to read and speak French

Disqualifiers

Severe neurological disorder

Severe psychiatric disorder

(Pre-)terminal phase of cancer disease

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Psycho-Education

    Device

    Supporting parents by providing useful informations and recommendations regarding communication with their children.

  • Psycho-Experiential

    Behavioral

    (1) Continuous support of parental self-efficacy about parental competence to communicate ; (2) Exercises about improving parental competence to communicate with their children (role-plays, transfer in the daily life).

Treatment groups

120 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: SOURCE - educationalActive comparator 1 intervention
Group B: SOURCE - experientialExperimental treatment 2 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Frequency of parental communication with their children about cancer or its consequences

In the weekly assessment, participants are asked how many moments of communication they had with their child(ren) about cancer, treatments, or their consequences during the past week. This item measures the frequency of communication.

Time frame
Weeks 2 to 26 (weekly assessment).
2

Quality of parental communication with their children about cancer or its consequences

A composite communication quality score will be computed for each communication moment reported in the weekly assessments. The score will be based on several dimensions: 1. Initiative, indicating whether the communication was initiated by the parent (yes/no); 2. Duration of the communication moment, reported in minutes; 3. Parental self-efficacy, defined as the perceived ability to inform, listen, answer questions, and reassure, each rated on a 0-10 Likert scale (0 = not at all capable; 10 = completely capable); 4. Comfort during the communication, assessed separately for the parent and the child using a 0-10 Likert scale (0 = not at all comfortable; 10 = extremely comfortable); 5. Disease-related topics discussed (yes/no); 6. Emotional expression, assessed using two yes/no items indicating whether the parent expressed their emotional experience and/or addressed the child's emotional experience related to the disease. Higher scores reflect better communication quality.

Time frame
Weeks 2 to 26 (weekly assessment).
3

Parental communication difficulties

The level of perceived difficulties to communicate is assessed through one item 10-point Likert scale (0 = not at all certain; 10 = absolutely certain).

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).
4

Parental self-efficacy regarding the communication with their children about cancer or its consequences

The level of self-efficacy to communicate is assessed through 27 items covering a list of disease-related communication topics (3 subscales of 9 items each : "I know how to communicate", "I am able to communicate" and "I am comfortable to communicate") 10-point Likert scale (0 = not at all certain; 10 = absolutely certain). The total score is obtained by summing the responses to all 27 items (maximum score = 270), and subscale scores are calculated by summing the 9 corresponding items (maximum score = 90).

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).

Secondary outcomes

1

Perceived children's communication behaviors

Perceived children's communication behaviors are assessed through a 12-item, 4-point Likert scale (0 = no; 1 = rather no; 2 = rather yes; 3 = yes). This questionnaire explores disease-related topics the child spontaneously brought up during conversations. The total score, obtained by summing the responses to all items, reflects the breadth of the child's spontaneous communication repertoire regarding the disease.

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).
2

Parental self-efficacy in general

The level of parental self-efficacy in general is assessed through one validated item (Moore et al., 2015) rated on a 10-point Likert scale (0 = not at all certain; 10 = absolutely certain).

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).
3

Children's academic performance

The authors developed a questionnaire to assess the academic performance of participants' children. This questionnaire explores the child's current level of education (i.e., current school grade if the child is still enrolled), as well as retrospective information about the previous school year, including the jury's decision (pass with or without conditions, or failure), the child's overall grade point average, and the number of subjects in which the child failed. Additionally, the questionnaire collects information on the total number of grade retentions since the beginning of the child's schooling.

Time frame
Baseline (T1), at the end of the current academic year at the time of week 12 (T4).
4

Participant's perception of their AYA's global quality of life (KIDSCREEN)

Children's global quality of life is assessed using the KIDSCREEN questionnaire. The KIDSCREEN is available in both self-reported and hetero-reported versions; the latter is used to gather parents' perspectives on their children's quality of life. We used a 36-item version, rated on a 5-point Likert scale (with response options varying across items). In addition to a total score-calculated by summing responses across all 36 items-the questionnaire provides results on seven subscales: (1) Physical activities and health (5 items), (2) Child's feelings (3 items), (3) General mood (7 items), (4) Child's free time (4 items), (5) At home (6 items), (6) Friends (5 items), and (7) At school/university (6 items). For the last subscale, a "not applicable" option is available if the child is no longer enrolled in school.

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).

Other outcomes

1

Communication about cancer or its consequences in the family from the AYA perspective

Communication about cancer or its consequences in the family from the AYA perspective is assessed through 10 items 10-point Likert scale (0 = not at all true; 10 = absolutely true).

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).
2

AYA's communication wishes

AYA communication wishes are assessed through 10 items 10-point Likert scale (0 = not at all true; 10 = absolutely true).

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).
3

AYA's future expectations of parental disease and treatments

AYA's future expectations regarding parental disease and treatments are assessed using a 10-item measure. For each item, participants are asked to (1) choose between two proposed outcomes for a given situation-one optimistic and one pessimistic-and (2) indicate their level of certainty that this outcome will occur, selecting from three options: might, probably, or definitely. Among the 10 situations presented, 6 are neutral and realistic, while 4 are specifically related to the disease. Scoring is based on both the valence of the choice and the level of certainty. If the optimistic outcome is chosen, the score is assigned a positive sign; if the pessimistic outcome is chosen, the score is negative. The level of certainty determines the absolute value of the score: might = 1, probably = 2, and definitely = 3. Scores are summed separately for the two subscales.

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).
4

Participant's future expectations of disease and treatments

This questionnaire should only be completed by the parent if one of his or her children is participating in the study. Participant's future expectations of disease and treatments are assessed using a 10-item measure. For each item, participants are asked to (1) choose between two proposed outcomes for a given situation-one optimistic and one pessimistic - and (2) indicate their level of certainty that this outcome will occur, selecting from three options : might, probably, or definitely. Among the 10 situations presented, 6 are neutral and realistic, while 4 are specifically related to the disease. Scoring is based on both the valence of the choice and the level of certainty. If the optimistic outcome is chosen, the score is assigned a positive sign; if the pessimistic outcome is chosen, the score is negative. The level of certainty determines the absolute value of the score: might = 1, probably = 2, and definitely = 3. Scores are summed separately for the two subscales.

Time frame
Baseline (T1), week 12 (T2) and week 26 (T3).

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Université Libre de Bruxelles

Lead sponsor

Centre de Psycho-Oncologie (CPO)

Collaborator

Jules Bordet Institute

Collaborator

Erasme University Hospital

Collaborator

Fonds Thierry Maricq & Véronique Detournay, Fondation Roi Baudouin, Belgium

Collaborator

Association Jules Bordet

Collaborator