Kazak 2004.
| Methods | Randomised trial of Surviving Cancer Competently Program or wait list | |
| Participants |
Included (n = 150) Adolescent survivors of childhood cancer 11 to 19 years of age who had completed treatment within the previous 1 to 10 years and their families. Female: 51%. Ethnicity: white 85%, black 9%, Hispanic 5%, Asian 1% Excluded Adolescents who had relapsed, had mental retardation, lacked fluency in English or lived more than 150 miles from the hospital Setting Children's Hospital, Philadelphia, USA |
|
| Interventions |
Surviving Cancer Competently Program (n = 76) A manualised family group programme integrating CBT and family therapy principles over 1 day. The 4 sessions covered 'How Cancer Has Affected Me and My Family', 'Coping Skills', 'Getting on With Life' and 'Family Health and Our Future' Wait list control (n = 74) Therapists Therapists included psychologists, nurses and social workers who were given 12 hours of training. Treatment adherence was assessed as 96% across sessions |
|
| Outcomes |
PTSD symptoms Scale: Impact of Events Scale ‐ Revised (22‐item) Rater: child/adolescent Scale: UCLA PTSD Reaction Index (20‐item) Rater: child/adolescent Anxiety Scale: Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; 37‐item) Rater: child/adolescent When At 3 to 5 months after therapy |
|
| Notes | Sample sizes for the RCMAS were not clear SDs were calculated from 95% CIs |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Stratified randomisation by age group (11 to 14 and 15 to 18 years) and gender, but no other details given |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants (performance bias | High risk | Quite probable participants were aware of whether they were in the wait list or therapy group |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | All measures were self reported |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Imputed values were given, but loss to follow‐up was 38% in the intervention group compared with 7% in the wait list control group; overall loss to follow‐up was 26% |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes appear to have been reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other bias was apparent |