Cross-sectional study examines coping strategies and their impact on parental distress in childhood cancer, suggesting clinical interventions prioritize avoidance-focused coping.
Objectives Parents of children with cancer are at increased risk for anxiety, depression, and post‐traumatic stress, although wide variability among parents has been documented. This cross‐sectional study was designed to examine the individual contributions and simultaneous interaction of three coping constructs—coping strategy, repertoire of coping techniques, and flexibility in applying these techniques—in parental distress related to childhood cancer. Methods A sample of 88 mothers and 57 fathers ( N = 145) of children undergoing active cancer treatment were recruited from a pediatric hematology‐oncology department. Parents' ages ranged from 22 to 58 years. Parents completed standardized measures including the Brief COPE, Coping Flexibility Scale‐Revised, the Pediatric Parenting Stress Inventory , and the Profile of Mood States . Results Avoidance‐focused coping strategy, repertoire of coping techniques, and coping flexibility were individually found to be significantly correlated with parental distress. Bootstrap mediation analysis revealed that the collective model explained 37%–43% of the variance in parental distress, with avoidance‐focused coping strategy emerging as the most significant predictor, accounting for approximately 29% of the total variance. Conclusions These results suggest that clinical interventions should prioritize identifying and reducing parental reliance on avoidance‐focused coping techniques as a primary target. Subsequently, expanding parents' repertoire of problem‐ and emotion‐focused coping techniques and enhancing flexibility in their application could lead to better distress reduction. However, the cross‐sectional design limits causal interpretation, and future longitudinal studies employing larger sample sizes are needed to establish the relationships between these constructs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hamtzani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: