Skip to main content

Acceptability and feasibility of family use of The Cellie Cancer Coping Kit

Supportive Care in Cancer volume 20, pages 3315–3324 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to examine the acceptability and feasibility of child and parent use of The Cellie Cancer Coping Kit (Cellie Kit). The Cellie kit is designed to promote coping and decrease distress in children undergoing pediatric cancer treatment. It includes a plush toy, coping cards, and book for caregivers.

Methods

In study 1, 15 children (ages 6–12) undergoing cancer treatment and their parents reviewed the Cellie Kit materials and provided feedback on its acceptability and perceived feasibility of use. In study 2, 15 additional children (ages 6–12) and their parents participated in a pilot intervention of the Cellie Kit and completed follow-up interviews and a satisfaction measure.

Results

In study 1, all parents reported that they could understand the book and enact its coping tips and that the Cellie Kit was relevant to their families' cancer experience. Children explained they would use the Cellie Kit for emotional expression, fun, and comfort. The Cellie Kit was revised after study 1 to integrate additional material suggested by families. In study 2, all families completing follow-up assessments reported utilizing the Cellie Kit. A majority (86 % of children and 100 % of parents) indicated that they would recommend the Cellie Kit to others, and most (64 % of children and 93 % of parents) reported learning new information and/or skills from the Cellie Kit.

Conclusions

The Cellie Kit is an engaging, helpful, and easy-to-use coping tool for families facing pediatric cancer treatment. Future research should examine the efficacy of brief interventions using the Cellie Kit to promote adjustment to pediatric cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. The stuffed toy was originally conceptualized as a healthy cell, which led to its name. However, during early development, we reconceptualized Cellie as a neutral, nondescript toy so that children could interpret and tailor it to their own situation/feelings. Because children responded well to the name, we did not modify the name.

  2. Of note, the stressor “fear of death” was intentionally excluded from the Cellie Kit materials. Though this emerged as a potential stressor for families, several parents explained that the inclusion of a reference to death would prevent them from using the Cellie Kit with their child. Additionally, while one parent reported providing coping assistance to his/her child by encouraging religion, we elected not to integrate this coping assistance strategy into the Cellie Kit to respect the diversity of families' belief systems.

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2010). Childhood leukemia: detailed guide. [cited 2011 Jan 24]; Available from: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/LeukemiainChildren/DetailedGuide/index

  2. Hedström M et al (2003) Distressing events for children and adolescents with cancer: child, parent, and nurse perceptions. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 20(3):120–132

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Whitsett SF et al (2008) Chemotherapy-related fatigue in childhood cancer: correlates, consequences, and coping strategies. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 25(2):86–96

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Collins JJ et al (2000) The measurement of symptoms in children with cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag 19(5):363–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Novakovic B et al (1996) Experiences of cancer in children and adolescents. Cancer Nurs 19(1):54–59

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hildenbrand AK et al (2011) Coping with pediatric cancer: strategies employed by children and their parents to manage cancer-related stressors during treatment. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 28(6):344–354

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Adler NA, Page AEK (eds) (2008) Cancer care for the whole patient: meeting psychosocial health needs. National Academies, Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wiener LS et al (eds) (2009) Quick reference for pediatric oncology clinicians: The psychiatric and psychological dimensions of pediatric cancer symptom management. IPOS, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kazak AE et al (2007) Evidence-based assessment, intervention and psychosocial care in pediatric oncology: a blueprint for comprehensive services across treatment. J Pediatr Psychol 32(9):1099–1110

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Surbone A et al (2010) Psychosocial care for patients and their families is integral to supportive care in cancer: MASCC position statement. Support Care Cancer 18(2):255–263

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Selove R et al (2011) Psychosocial services in the first 30 days after diagnosis: results of a web-based survey of children's oncology group (COG) member institutions. Pediatr Blood Cancer 58(3):435–440

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kazak AE (2005) Evidence-based interventions for survivors of childhood cancer and their families. J Pediatr Psychol 30(1):29–39

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kato PM et al (2008) A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 122(2):e305–e317

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Beale IL et al (2007) Improvement in cancer-related knowledge following use of a psychoeducational video game for adolescents and young adults with cancer. J Adolesc Health 41(3):263–270

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brokstein RT, Cohen SO, Walco GA (2002) Starbright World and psychological adjustment in children with cancer: a clinical series. Child Health Care 31(1):29–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Battles HB, Wiener LS (2002) Starbright World: effects of an electronic network on the social environment of children with life-threatening illnesses. Child Health Care 31(1):47–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiener L et al (2011) ShopTalk: a pilot study of the feasibility and utility of a therapeutic board game for youth living with cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer 19(7):1049–1054

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marsac ML, Vinsel AM (2010) Kit and method for promotion of positive adjustment to illness and trauma. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kuppenheimer WG, Brown RT (2002) Painful procedures in pediatric cancer. A comparison of interventions. Clin Psychol Rev 22(5):753–786

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Powers SW (1999) Empirically supported treatments in pediatric psychology: procedure-related pain. J Pediatr Psychol 24(2):131–145

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Uman LS et al (2008) A systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents: an abbreviated cochrane review. J Pediatr Psychol 33(8):842–854

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Beatty PC, Willis GB (2007) Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q 71(2):287–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hruschka DJ et al (2004) Reliability in coding open-ended data: lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods 16(3):307–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patton MQ (ed) (2002) Qualitative research & evaluative methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  25. Padgett D (ed) (2008) Qualitative methods in social work research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bowen GA (2008) Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res 8(1):137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Klosky JL et al (2007) Predicting pediatric distress during radiation therapy procedures: the role of medical, psychosocial, and demographic factors. Pediatrics 119(5):e1159–1166

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bruce M (2006) A systematic and conceptual review of posttraumatic stress in childhood cancer survivors and their parents. Clin Psychol Rev 26(3):233–256

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reinfjell T et al (2009) Children in remission from acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: mental health, psychosocial adjustment and parental functioning. Eur J Cancer Care 18(4):364–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Butler RW, Rizzi LP, Handwerger BA (1996) Brief report: the assessment of posttraumatic sterss disorder in pediatric cancer patients and survivors. J Pediatr Psychol 21(4):499–504

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Erickson SJ, Steiner H (2001) Trauma and personality correlates in long-term pediatric cancer survivors. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 31(3):195–213

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Brown RT, Madan-Swain A, Lambert R (2003) Posttraumatic stress symptoms in adolescent survivors of childhood cancer and their mothers. J Trauma Stress 16(4):309–318

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kazak AE et al (2001) Posttraumatic stress in survivors of childhood cancer and mothers: development and validation of the impact of traumatic stressors interview schedule (ITSIS). J Clin Psychol Med Settings 8(4):307–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Landolt MA et al (2006) Health-related quality of life in children with newly diagnosed cancer: a one year follow-up study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:63

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Speechley KN et al (2006) Health-related quality of life among child and adolescent survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(16):2536–2543

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kazak AE et al (2005) Feasibility and preliminary outcomes from a pilot study of a brief psychological intervention for families of children newly diagnosed with cancer. J Pediatr Psychol 30(8):11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stehl ML et al (2009) Conducting a randomized clinical trial of an psychological intervention for parents/caregives of children with cancer shortly after diagnosis. J Pediatr Psychol 34(8):803–816

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sahler OJ et al (2005) Using problem-solving skills training to reduce negative affectivity in mothers of children with newly diagnosed cancer: report of a multisite randomized trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 73(2):272–283

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the families who helped us maximize the quality of the Cellie kit and the Fighting Children's Cancer Foundation for their generous donation. We thank the following research assistants: Mona Abughaida, Kelly Dugan Burns, Daniel Huber, and Alyssa Mathews. We would also like to acknowledge the members of Writers Seminar of the CHOP/PENN Mentored Psychosocial Research Curriculum, supported by a K05 award to Anne E. Kazak, Ph.D. (CA128805), for reviewing drafts of this manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Marsac and Ms. Vinsel are co-inventors of The Cellie Cancer Coping Kit. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the co-inventors have filed a provisional patent for the kit and may benefit financially from the kit. The research presented in the paper has been approved by the Hospital's Conflict of Interest Committee.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Injury Research & Prevention, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 3535 Market, Suite 1150, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Meghan L. Marsac, Aimee K. Hildenbrand, Kathleen Clawson, Kristen Kohser & Nancy Kassam-Adams

  2. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Aimee K. Hildenbrand

  3. Cancer Center, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Leela Jackson, Lamia Barakat, Richard Aplenc & Melissa A. Alderfer

  4. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Lamia Barakat, Richard Aplenc & Melissa A. Alderfer

  5. Graduate Medical Education, University of Utah Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Anne Vinsel

Authors
  1. Meghan L. Marsac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aimee K. Hildenbrand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen Clawson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leela Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kristen Kohser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lamia Barakat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nancy Kassam-Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Richard Aplenc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anne Vinsel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Melissa A. Alderfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghan L. Marsac.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marsac, M.L., Hildenbrand, A.K., Clawson, K. et al. Acceptability and feasibility of family use of The Cellie Cancer Coping Kit. Support Care Cancer 20, 3315–3324 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1475-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1475-y

Keywords

  • Coping with cancer
  • Psychosocial tool
  • Pediatric oncology
  • Emotional response to cancer
  • Cancer coping kit