Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun 5:10:20552076241260513.
doi: 10.1177/20552076241260513. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec.

E-therapists' views on the acceptability and feasibility of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for parents of children treated for cancer: A qualitative study

Christina Reuther  1 , Johan Lundgren  1   2 , Maria Gottvall  1   3 , Johan Ljungberg  1 , Joanne Woodford  1 , Louise von Essen  1
Affiliations

E-therapists' views on the acceptability and feasibility of an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for parents of children treated for cancer: A qualitative study

Christina Reuther et al. Digit Health. .

Abstract

Background: Childhood cancer treatment completion can be a period of vulnerability for parents and is associated with mental health difficulties such as depression and anxiety. We developed an internet-administered, guided, low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy-based self-help intervention (EJDeR) for parents delivered on the U-CARE-portal (Portal). The acceptability and feasibility of EJDeR and study procedures were examined using a single-arm feasibility trial (ENGAGE). Results indicated that EJDeR and ENGAGE study procedures are acceptable and feasible, however, a need for clinical and technical modifications to EJDeR and refinements to ENGAGE study procedures was identified.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of EJDeR and ENGAGE study procedures from the perspective of e-therapists to inform clinical and technical modifications to EJDeR and refinements to study procedures prior to progression to a superiority randomised controlled trial.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 e-therapists. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis.

Results: We identified three categories relating to the acceptability and feasibility of EJDeR: (a) Support to e-therapists (subcategories: Clinical supervision and Technical difficulties); (b) Guidance to parents (subcategories: Support protocols and Synchronous communication); and (c) Content (subcategories: Relevancy of the intervention and Pacing of the intervention). We identified four categories relating to the acceptability and feasibility of study procedures: (a) Recruitment and training of e-therapists (subcategories: Definition of the role and Training program); (b) Retention of parents (subcategories: Parent suitability and screening and Frequency of weekly Portal assessments); (c) Retention of e-therapists (subcategories: Administrative requirements and Communication with the research team); and (d) The Portal.

Conclusions: EJDeR and study procedures were considered acceptable and feasible, however, clinical and technical modifications and refinements to study procedures were suggested to enhance acceptability and feasibility. Results may also inform implementation considerations for both EJDeR and other similar digital psychological interventions.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN 57233429.

Keywords: Cognitive behavioural therapy; cancer; digital psychological intervention; e-therapist; internet-administered intervention; qualitative research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
An overview of the structure of EJDeR.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. GBD 2017 Childhood Cancer Collaborators. The global burden of childhood and adolescent cancer in 2017: an analysis of the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 1211–1225. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shanmugavadivel D, Liu JF, Ball-Gamble A, et al. The childhood cancer diagnosis (CCD) study: a UK observational study to describe referral pathways and quantify diagnostic intervals in children and young people with cancer. BMJ Open 2022; 12: e058744. - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Flon M, Glaffey G, Jarl L, et al. The childhood cancer centre is coming home: experiences of hospital-based home care. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 6241. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020; 70: 7–30. - PubMed
    1. Pai ALH, Greenley RN, Lewandowski A, et al. A meta-analytic review of the influence of pediatric cancer on parent and family functioning. J Fam Psychol 2007; 21: 407–415. - PubMed