Background: Pain is a common symptom in childhood cancer. Since children spend more time at home, families are increasingly responsible for pain management. This study aimed at assessing pain at home.

Purpose This study assessed adherence to, feasibility of, and barriers and facilitators of implementation of an app developed to monitor and follow-up with pain in children with cancer at home. Methods Children (8–18 years) receiving cancer treatment (all diagnoses) or their parents (of children aged 0–7 years) used the KLIK Pain Monitor app for 3 weeks. Pain was assessed twice daily using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS-11) (ranging from 0 to 10). Healthcare professionals (HCP’s) from the hospital’s Pediatric Pain Service were instructed to follow-up with clinically significant pain scores (≥ 4) within 120 min (scores 4–6) or 30 min (scores 7–10). Adherence, feasibility, and implementation outcomes were assessed using questionnaires, app log data, and interviews. Results Twenty-seven children (M age = 7.3 years, 51.8% male) and six HCP’s participated. Sixty-three percent (N = 17) of families used the app on a daily basis during three weeks, and 18.5% (N = 5) reported pain scores twice daily during that time (family adherence). Twelve out of 27 children (44.4%) reported a clinically significant pain score at least once. In 70% (14/20) of clinically significant pain scores, HCP’s followed-up with families within the set timeframe (HCP adherence). Outcomes reveal feasibility for the majority of app functions (i.e., positive evaluation by ≥ 70% families/HCP’s), and non-feasible aspects could be resolved. Identified barriers and facilitators were used to improve future implementation efforts. Conclusion Use of the KLIK Pain Monitor app seems feasible. Future research will determine its effectiveness in reducing pain in children with cancer at home.

Background: Many significant others of persons with serious conditions like spinal cord injury (SCI) and acquired brain injury (ABI) report high levels of psychological distress. In line with the stress-coping model, the aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between personal resource resilience and psychological distress, and whether appraisals of threat and loss, and passive coping mediate this relationship. Methods: Significant others (n = 228) of persons with SCI or ABI completed questionnaires shortly after admission to first inpatient rehabilitation after onset of the condition. The questionnaire included measures to assess psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), resilience (Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-10), appraisals (Appraisals of Life Events scale, threat and loss) and passive coping (Utrecht Coping List). The PROCESS tool was used to test the presence of mediation. Confounding and differences between SCI and ABI were investigated. Results: High levels of psychological distress among significant others were found (34-41%). Fifty-five percent of the variance in psychological distress was explained by the relationship between resilience and psychological distress. This relationship was mediated by appraisals of threat and loss, and passive coping. The relationship between resilience and psychological distress was similar in the SCI and ABI groups. Conclusions: The results of our study indicate that appraisals of threat and loss and passive coping are mediating factors in the relationship between resilience and psychological distress. It seems useful to investigate if interventions focussing on psychological factors like resilience, appraisal and coping are effective to prevent or reduce psychological distress among significant others of persons with SCI or ABI.