Vignette-based methodologies are frequently used to examine judgments and decision-making processes, including clinical judgments made by health professionals. Concerns are sometimes raised that vignettes do not accurately reflect “real world” phenomena, and that this affects the validity of results and conclusions of these studies. This article provides an overview of the defining features, design variations, strengths, and weaknesses of vignette studies as a way of examining how health professionals form clinical judgments (e.g., assigning diagnoses, selecting treatments). As a “hybrid” of traditional survey and experimental methods, vignette studies can offer aspects of both the high internal validity of experiments and the high external validity of survey research in order to disentangle multiple predictors of clinician behavior. When vignette studies are well designed to test specific questions about judgments and decision-making, they can be highly generalizable to “real life” behavior, while overcoming the ethical, practical, and scientific limitations associated with alternative methods (e.g., observation, self-report, standardized patients, archival analysis). We conclude with methodological recommendations and a description of how vignette methodologies are being used to investigate clinicians’ diagnostic decisions in case-controlled field studies for the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders, and how these studies illustrate the preceding concepts and recommendations

Objective In response to the rapidly unfolding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in spring 2020, we developed a caregiver-report measure to understand the extent to which children and families were exposed to events related to COVID-19 and their perceptions of its impact. This article reports on the factor structure and psychometric properties of this measure. Methods The COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales (CEFIS) were developed by a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team using a rapid iterative process. Data from 1805 caregivers recruited from 28 programs at 15 institutions across the United States were collected from May—September 2020. We examined the underlying structure of the CEFIS using exploratory factor analyses and its internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). Results Participants reported a range of COVID-19-related events (M = 8.71 events of 25). On the bidirectional 4-point impact scale, mean scores were mostly above the midpoint, indicating a slightly negative impact. Cronbach’s alpha was excellent for Exposure (α = .80) and Impact (α = .92). Factor analysis identified six factors for Exposure (COVID-19 experiences, Access to essentials, Disruptions to living conditions, Loss of income, Family caregiving and activities, and Designation as an essential worker). There were three factors for Impact (Personal well-being, Family interactions, and Distress). Discussion The CEFIS has strong factors assessing Exposure to events related to COVID-19, and the Impact of these events on families of children in pediatric healthcare. These initial validation data support use of the CEFIS for measuring the effect of the pandemic.

Many oncologists and psychosocial leaders perceive that the delivery of psychosocial care at their center is consistent with the Standards. However, care is quite variable, with evidence for the value of more integrated models of psychosocial services.

Background Fifteen evidence-based Standards for Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and their Families were published in 20151. The Standards cover a broad range of topics and circumstances and require qualified multidisciplinary staff to be implemented. This paper presents data on the availability of psychosocial staff and existing practices at pediatric oncology programs in the United States, providing data that can be used to advocate for expanded services and prepare for implementation of the Standards. Procedure Up to three healthcare professionals from 144 programs (72% response rate) participated in an online survey conducted June – December 2016. There were 99 pediatric oncologists with clinical leadership responsibility (Medical Director/Clinical Director), 132 psychosocial leaders in pediatric oncology (Director of Psychosocial Services/Manager/most senior staff member), and 58 administrators in pediatric oncology (Administrative Director/Business Administrator/Director of Operations). The primary outcomes were number and type of psychosocial staff, psychosocial practices, and identified challenges in the delivery of psychosocial care. Results Over 90% of programs have social workers and child life specialists who provide care to children with cancer and their families. Fewer programs have psychologists (60%), neuropsychologists (31%) or psychiatrists (19%). Challenges in psychosocial care are primarily based on pragmatic issues related to funding and reimbursement. Conclusion Most participating pediatric oncology programs appear to have at least the basic level of staffing necessary to implement of some of the Standards. However, the lack of a more comprehensive multidisciplinary team is a likely barrier in the implementation of the full set of Standards.

This analysis provides support for the effectiveness of school reentry interventions and highlights the critical need for more empirical work in this area.

This systematic review provides a synthesis of randomized-controlled trials of technology-focused family interventions for children with chronic illnesses and their families, focused on describing the current state of the literature and generating recommendations for future family systems work in the field of eHealth/mHealth. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. No identified studies featured an mHealth delivery modality. Relevant data were extracted and studies were assessed for quality. There was great variability with regard to intervention factors (e.g., format) and family-centered intervention targets. There is some evidence that eHealth interventions may lead to improvements in particular domains of family functioning (e.g., family conflict) for some groups of participants. However, mixed results and selection of numerous different intervention targets by investigators make it challenging to draw summative conclusions about the overall effectiveness of family systems eHealth interventions. Future research should move beyond feasibility/acceptability studies and examine family-centered processes as primary outcomes. Future research should also consider novel intervention formats to determine whether intervention effects are more robust for certain groups (e.g., individuals who prefer electronic intervention delivery to in-person intervention).

Objective: eHealth interventions may facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based psychosocial interventions to families of children with chronic illnesses, including cancer. This article describes a 4-phase, mixed-methods, user-centered approach to the design and evaluation of a novel psychosocial intervention for parents of children with cancer (Electronic Surviving Cancer Competently Intervention Program [eSCCIP]), adapted from an in-person intervention (Surviving Cancer Competently Intervention Program). Method: Development of eSCCIP involved a multidisciplinary design team of content and eHealth experts. Iterative Think Aloud testing and beta testing with parents of children with cancer was also completed. Results: An intensive, user-centered development and evaluation process was utilized to develop an eHealth intervention for parents of children with cancer. Initial testers rated eSCCIP favorably on questionnaires evaluating user experience and perceptions, and provided positive feedback and suggestions for additional improvement through qualitative interviews. Conclusions: Initial results suggest that eSCCIP may be an acceptable, feasible, and usable intervention for parents of children with cancer. eSCCIP is now ready for a larger pilot evaluation of usability, feasibility, and impact on target outcomes, including the reduction of anxiety and posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) and improvements in family functioning.

Family psychosocial risk screening is an important initial step in delivering evidence-based care in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Establishing an evidence-based screening approach that is acceptable, reliable, and valid is an essential step in psychosocial care delivery. This is a 3-institution multimethod study. In part 1, caregivers of children about to undergo HCT (n = 140) completed the Psychosocial Assessment ToolÀHematopoietic Cell Transplantation (PAT-HCT), a brief parent report screener adapted for HCT, and validating questionnaires. Families received feedback on their risks identified on the PAT-HCT. In part 2, 12 caregivers completed a semistructured interview about their perceptions of the PAT and the feedback process. The reliability and validity of the PAT-HCT total and subscale scores were tested using Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) and Pearson correlations. Thematic content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative interview data. Internal consistency for the total score (KR-20 = .88) and the Child Problems, Sibling Problems, Family Problems, and Stress Reactions subscales were strong (KR-20 >.70). Family Structure, Social Support, and Family Beliefs subscales were adequate (KR-20 = .55 to .63). Moderate to strong correlations with the criteria measures provided validation for the total and subscale scores. Feedback was provided to 97.14% of the families who completed the PAT-HCT, and the mean rating of acceptability was >4.00 (on a 5-point scale). The qualitative data indicate that families appreciate the effort to provide screening and feedback. The PAT-HCT is a psychometrically sound screener for use in HCT. Feedback can be given to families. Both the screener and the feedback process are acceptable to caregivers.