Development of a blueprint for sibling psychosocial services: A nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Siblings of youth with cancer have heightened risk for poor long-term psychosocial outcomes. Although sibling psychosocial care is a standard in pediatric oncology, this standard is among those least likely to be met. To address barriers to providing sibling services, a blueprint for systematic psychosocial screening and support of siblings was developed based on feedback from a national sample of psychosocial providers. PROCEDURE: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of psychosocial care providers (N = 27) of various disciplines working in US pediatric cancer centers, varied in size, type, and extent of sibling support. Interviews queried providers' suggestions for the future of sibling psychosocial care and impressions of a blueprint for sibling service delivery, which was iteratively refined based on respondents' feedback. Interviews were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: Based on existing literature and refined according to providers' recommendations, the Sibling Services Blueprint was developed to provide a comprehensive guide for systematizing sibling psychosocial care. The blueprint content includes: (i) a timeline for repeated sibling screening and assessment; (ii) a stepped model of psychosocial support; (iii) strategies for circumventing barriers to sibling care; and (iv) recommendations for how centers with varying resources might accomplish sibling-focused care. The blueprint is available online, allowing providers to easily access and individualize the content. Providers indicated enthusiasm and high potential utility and usability of the blueprint. CONCLUSIONS: The Sibling Services Blueprint may be a useful tool for systematizing sibling psychosocial care, promoting wider availability of sibling-focused services, and addressing siblings' unmet needs.

Inconsistent, uncoordinated, and reactive: The current state of sibling psychosocial care.

BACKGROUND: Although providing sibling psychosocial services is a standard of care in pediatric oncology, initial survey research suggests that this standard is rarely achieved and siblings' support needs remain unmet. Which sibling psychosocial services are available and how centers provide such services is unknown. To identify targetable services gaps, this qualitative study characterizes current sibling psychosocial care practices at select pediatric cancer centers across the United States. PROCEDURE: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of psychosocial care providers (N = 27) working across the United States in pediatric oncology centers of varied sizes. Interviews queried providers regarding sibling-focused parent psychoeducation, psychosocial screening, comprehensive assessment, and psychosocial support offerings. Interview data were analyzed using Applied Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Across cancer centers, sibling care practices did not align with consensus-based recommendations. The nature and availability of sibling-focused psychoeducation, screening, assessment, and support were variable between and within centers. Siblings themselves were largely absent from sibling psychosocial care, and care was rarely sibling-specific. The flow of information about siblings was discontinuous and uncoordinated across the care continuum, resulting in psychosocial care provided reactively, typically in response to parental concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Sibling psychosocial care provision falls short of established care recommendations, leaving sibling psychosocial needs unmet. Findings highlight the need for tools and strategies to facilitate the implementation of sibling psychosocial care across the care continuum, to support siblings' psychosocial functioning across the life course.

Psychosocial care providers' perspectives: Barriers to implementing services for siblings of children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Siblings of children with cancer are at increased risk for poor long-term psychosocial outcomes. The standard of psychosocial care in pediatric oncology calling for sibling support is not routinely implemented, often leaving siblings with unmet psychosocial needs. Barriers to implementing the sibling standard may exist at multiple levels. This study addresses research gaps regarding multilevel barriers to supporting siblings at the health care system, oncology center, and family levels. PROCEDURE: Qualitative interviews were conducted with psychosocial care providers (N = 27; 18 psychologists, five social workers, three psychiatrists, and one child life specialist) employed at oncology centers within hospitals across the United States, varying in extent of sibling programming and center size. Interviews included questions about providers' roles, oncology center characteristics, existing psychosocial sibling services, barriers to providing systematic sibling assessment, and ideas about how to overcome barriers. Data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed (a) barriers to providing sibling services occur at multiple levels (health care system, oncology center, family); (b) barriers at multiple levels frequently interact with one another; and (c) interacting barriers maintain a cycle: barriers to providing services contribute to limited provision of services, low service provision leads to limited utilization of existing services and underprioritization of siblings, and together this leads to siblings being off the radar, which further limits sibling service provision. CONCLUSION: Addressing health care system and oncology center barriers to implementing sibling assessment and support may be important potential targets for interventions to help ensure that siblings receive needed psychosocial assessment and support.

Sleep Education and Training among Practicing Clinical Psychologists in the United States and Canada.

Introduction: Clinical psychologists often treat patients with a sleep disorder. Cognitive-behavioral treatments can independently, or in combination with medical interventions, effectively improve sleep health outcomes. No studies have examined sleep education and training among practicing clinical psychologists.Method: Actively practicing clinical psychologists were recruited through psychological associations' e-mail listservs across the United States and Canada. Respondents (N = 200) provided information about: 1) duration and format of formal sleep education and training; 2) perceived self-efficacy to evaluate and treat sleep disorders; and 3) interest in further sleep training.Results: Clinical psychologists reported a median of 10.0 hours of didactic sleep training (range 0-130 hours) across their training or career. Ninety-five percent reported no clinical sleep training during graduate school, internship, or post-doctoral fellowship. In terms of evaluation and treatment, 63.2% reported feeling at least "Moderately Prepared" to evaluate a patient's sleep and 59.5% felt at least "Moderately Prepared" to treat a common sleep disorder (insomnia disorder). However, most endorsed using insomnia disorder treatment approaches inconsistent with empirically supported guidelines. The vast majority (99.3%) desired additional sleep training across a variety of delivery formats.Discussion: Many clinical psychologists engaged in active patient care have received minimal formal sleep training. Despite this, they felt prepared to evaluate and treat sleep disorders. Their treatment recommendations were not aligned with evidence-based standards. This may result in a delay to, or absence of, effective treatment for patients, underscoring the critical need for sleep training among clinical psychologists. It is essential to improve sleep competencies for the field.