Front. Psychol. Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 1664-1078 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1775937 Systematic Review Effectiveness of psychological interventions for parents of children eligible for paediatric palliative care: a systematic review and meta-analysis Álvarez-Pérez Yolanda 1 2 3 4 * Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Conceptualization Investigation Supervision Writing – review & editing Funding acquisition Writing – original draft Duarte-Díaz Andrea 1 2 3 4 Writing – review & editing Conceptualization Investigation Formal analysis Methodology Data curation Rivero-Santana Amado 1 2 3 4 Writing – review & editing Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Formal analysis Data curation Abrante-Luis Alejandra 1 2 3 Data curation Writing – review & editing Methodology Carreras Bernat 5 Writing – review & editing Infante-Ventura Diego 1 2 3 Writing – review & editing Writing – original draft Ramos-García Vanesa 1 2 3 4 Methodology Data curation Writing – review & editing Torres-Castaño Alezandra 1 2 3 4 Data curation Writing – review & editing Methodology Herrera-Ramos Estefanía 1 2 3 4 Writing – review & editing Data curation Methodology Conceptualization Marrero Gómez Juan Luis 6 Writing – review & editing Perestelo-Pérez Lilisbeth 2 3 4 Funding acquisition Methodology Conceptualization Supervision Writing – review & editing Canary Islands Health Research Institute Foundation (FIISC), Tenerife, Spain Evaluation Unit (SESCS), Canary Islands Health Service (SCS), Tenerife, Spain Network for Research on Chronicity, Primary Care, and Health Promotion (RICAPPS), Tenerife, Spain The Spanish Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and Services of the National Health System (RedETS), Tenerife, Spain Department of Adult Psychiatry and Psychology, Institute of Neurosciences (ICN), Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain Paediatric Palliative Care Unit, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain Correspondence: Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez, yolanda.alvarezperez@sescs.es 03 03 2026 2026 17 1775937 26 12 2025 26 12 2025 23 01 2026 Copyright © 2026 Álvarez-Pérez, Duarte-Díaz, Rivero-Santana, Abrante-Luis, Carreras, Infante-Ventura, Ramos-García, Torres-Castaño, Herrera-Ramos, Marrero Gómez and Perestelo-Pérez. 2026 Álvarez-Pérez, Duarte-Díaz, Rivero-Santana, Abrante-Luis, Carreras, Infante-Ventura, Ramos-García, Torres-Castaño, Herrera-Ramos, Marrero Gómez and Perestelo-Pérez https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Background

Paediatric palliative care (PPC) is an early, holistic model addressing the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs of children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions and their families. Parents frequently experience high psychological distress, and although psychological support is a core PPC component, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of interventions within this context remains limited, particularly across non-oncological conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for parents of children eligible for PPC.

 Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and CENTRAL was conducted in July 2024 and updated in Embase in November 2025. Randomized controlled trials evaluating psychological interventions for parents of children under 18 years eligible for PPC were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed where appropriate.

 Results

Thirty-six studies were included. Although the review aimed to capture studies involving parents of children with various life-limiting conditions eligible for PPC, the evidence base was almost exclusively oncology-focused: only one study was conducted within a PPC context, and all studies involved parents of children with cancer. The psychological interventions were heterogeneous and frequently multimodal, with cognitive-behavioural therapy being the most common approach. Meta-analyses showed primarily short-term significant moderate-to-large effect sizes, indicating improvements in anxiety (g = −1.00; 95% CI: −1.49, −0.52; I2 = 94%), depression (g = −0.77; 95% CI: −1.15, −0.39; I2 = 85%), psychological distress (g = −0.39; 95% CI: −0.75, −0.04; I2 = 0%) and hope (g = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.20, 1.26; I2 = 0%). Evidence of long-term effects was limited, with improvements observed only for post-traumatic stress symptoms (g = −0.29; 95% CI: −0.55, −0.03; I2 = 0%).

 Discussion

The findings suggest that psychological interventions, particularly those based on cognitive behavioural approaches, are effective in reducing psychological distress and enhancing positive psychological outcomes in the short term among parents of children with cancer who are eligible for PPC. However, the scarcity of studies explicitly conducted within PPC settings highlights the need for further high-quality trials across a wider range of life-limiting and life-threatening conditions.

 Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024594171, CRD42024594171

 cancer families life-limiting life-threatening illness paediatric population palliative care parent psychological interventions The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Health for the development of the activities of the 2024 Annual Work Plan of the Spanish Network of Agencies for Assessing National Health System Technologies and Performance; and partially by Research Network on Chronicity, Primary Care and Health Promotion (RICAPPS). section-at-acceptance Psycho-Oncology Introduction

An estimated 21 million children worldwide, including newborns, infants, children, and adolescents up to 19 years of age, are thought to require a palliative care approach each year (Connor et al., 2017). Over the years, models of paediatric palliative care (PPC) have evolved towards a more integrated and holistic perspective. Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics proposed comparable frameworks, emphasizing that PPC should be initiated early in the disease trajectory, regardless of whether curative treatment is being pursued (World Health Organization, 2018).

In this context, the Association for Children with Life-threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families (ACT) and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) developed a framework to classify the diseases of children eligible for palliative treatment into four groups (Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and Their Families (ACT), 2009): (i) Group 1: Serious illnesses for which curative treatment exists but may fail (e.g., cancer; failure of vital organs such as the heart, liver, or lungs requiring transplantation); (ii) Group 2: Conditions requiring prolonged periods of intensive treatment aimed at managing the pathophysiology of the disease to sustain life, but where premature death remains possible (e.g., cystic fibrosis; Duchenne muscular dystrophy; epidermolysis bullosa); (iii) Group 3: Progressive diseases for which no curative treatment exists, only palliative options (e.g., neuromuscular or neurodegenerative disorders; progressive metabolic diseases; advanced cancer with metastasis at diagnosis); and (iv) Group 4: Irreversible but non-progressive conditions associated with severe disability, leading to extreme vulnerability to complications that may result in premature death (e.g., severe cerebral palsy; complex congenital malformation syndromes).

PPC represents a comprehensive form of healthcare that addresses not only the needs of children but also those of their caregivers, who are most often family members or other primary support figures. Parents of children with a serious illness often experience significant psychological distress, which can affect their own wellbeing and may interfere with their capacity to support and care for their child (Boyden et al., 2022). Qualitative research has shown that parents face constant anxiety about the possible loss of their child, live with uncertainty, must confront difficult decisions about treatment, and often manage feelings of guilt or helplessness (Verberne et al., 2019). Comprehensive care seeks to actively address the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs of both children and their families, as these dimensions have a direct impact on care quality, communication, and participation in decision-making (Verberne et al., 2019).

In line with this holistic perspective, a person-centred approach that includes the structured and formal inclusion of professionals specialized in clinical psychology is considered fundamental to PPC. Such integration ensures that care extends beyond physical and clinical indicators to encompass emotional and relational processes central to family wellbeing (Hord et al., 2014; Edlynn and Kaur, 2016; Benini et al., 2022; Thompson et al., 2024). Several European countries have incorporated psychological care into their PPC guidelines, regardless of the underlying diagnosis (National Guideline Alliance (UK), 2016; World Health Organization, 2018; Parlamento Europeo, 2022). However, although palliative care programs routinely acknowledge psychological and psychiatric needs, the systematic identification and continuous monitoring of emotional distress remain insufficient (Cress, 2024).

While many psychological interventions are designed to prevent or treat physical and mental health problems in the context of a long-term prognosis, the work of clinical psychologists and specialists in psycho-oncology and palliative care becomes equally important when recovery from illness is uncertain or unlikely (Abramson, 2022). Evidence indicates that psychological interventions in PPC aimed at alleviating emotional and behavioural symptoms are effective in reducing both physical and mental symptomatology (e.g., anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue). These interventions also contribute meaningfully to improving quality of life and well-being in families of children with serious illnesses (Law et al., 2019; Santini et al., 2022; Cardenas et al., 2023). Commonly used interventions include cognitive-behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based approaches, family therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, dignity therapy, and grief and bereavement support, among others (Poltorak and Benore, 2006; Thompson and Kentor, 2021).

Despite the recognised importance of psychological care in addressing the complex needs of families affected by life-limiting conditions, clinical psychologists that working in paediatric palliative care contexts remain underrepresented in PPC service models, guidelines, and training programs (Thompson et al., 2023). This limited integration is reflected in the literature, where empirical studies evaluating psychological interventions specifically within PPC contexts are still scarce, despite their clear relevance and clinical necessity. Accordingly, this systematic review (SR) aims to evaluate the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions, compared to usual care for parents of children eligible for PPC.

 Materials and methods

The protocol of this SR was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024594171). The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (see Supplementary Table S1) (Page et al., 2021).

Given the limited number of studies evaluating psychological interventions delivered explicitly within formal PPC programmes, the scope of this SR was broadened to include studies involving parents of children with conditions that would make them potentially eligible for PPC, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, or complex chronic illnesses. This decision was justified by the conceptual and clinical overlap in the psychological needs and care contexts of these groups. Studies on psychological interventions for children susceptible to PPC are addressed in another article.

Literature search

A systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in the following electronic databases from inception date to July 2024: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and CENTRAL (Wiley). In addition, active alerts were maintained in Embase to identify new publications on the topic up to November 2025. The search filter developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network to retrieve RCTs1 was applied in all databases except CENTRAL. Detailed search strategies are presented in Supplementary Table S2.

The search strategy was structured around two main concepts: (1) paediatric palliative care—defined as (palliative care OR terminal care OR hospice care OR end-of-life OR life-threatening OR long-term hospitalisation OR critically ill) AND (child OR infant OR teen OR adolescent OR prenatal OR newborn OR neonate OR medical complexity OR paediatric care OR paediatric complex care OR parent OR caregiver OR family)—and (2) psychological interventions—defined as (psychotherapy OR psychological intervention OR psychosocial intervention).

 Eligibility criteria and study selection

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) RCTs; (2) studies involving primary caregivers (parents or legal guardians) of paediatric populations (under 18 years) potentially eligible for PPC (e.g., cancer, cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, complex chronic diseases); (3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of psychological interventions in which psychological outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, psychological distress) or safety (e.g., adverse effects of the psychological interventions); (4) psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive-behavioural therapy, family therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, dignity therapy), delivered individually or in groups, face-to-face or online, as standalone or part of multicomponent care, across inpatient, outpatient, or home care settings; (5) comparators such as usual care without psychological intervention; (6) for multicomponent interventions, only studies in which the isolated effect of the psychological component could be determined (e.g., component analyses or comparison arms without the psychological component) were included; and (7) articles published in English or Spanish.

Eligibility was defined broadly to include life-limiting or life-threatening conditions for which PPC may be indicated at any point across the disease trajectory. Given the heterogeneity of PPC populations, no restrictions were applied regarding specific diagnoses at the search or study selection stages.

The exclusion criteria were: (1) studies involving only paediatric populations (this data is presented in another publication); (2) involving family members who are not the parents or primary caregivers (e.g., siblings); (3) parents or primary caregivers of paediatric populations in acute care settings (e.g., emergency departments or intensive care units), of paediatric cancer survivors or of deceased children; and (4) healthcare or clinical professionals.

Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved through discussion involving a third reviewer. Initially, titles and abstracts were screened to assess their relevance to the inclusion criteria. Full texts of potentially eligible articles were then examined, and studies meeting all inclusion criteria were selected. Additionally, reference lists of the included studies were reviewed to identify further relevant RCTs.

 Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality

Data extraction was carried out in an Excel file including information from each study (e.g., dates of data collection), sample characteristics (e.g., age, gender, child diagnosis), study setting (e.g., PPC unit, hospital, home), study design (e.g., comparison condition), intervention details (e.g., number sessions, format, duration, provider), and intervention components. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) (Sterne et al., 2019). Data extraction and risk-of-bias were conducted independently by two reviewers. A third review author was consulted regarding any discrepancies, and these were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached.

 Analysis

A meta-analysis (MA) was conducted for each outcome whenever data were available from at least two studies for the post-treatment measure, using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4.1). MA were conducted using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) as substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies was anticipated.

For all outcomes, post-intervention or follow-up scores were used. When outcome measures differed in their scoring direction (i.e., higher scores indicating better versus worse outcomes), the sign of the effect size was reversed for scales in which higher scores represented better outcomes, so that negative standardized mean differences consistently reflected symptom reduction or improvement across all analyses. Statistical heterogeneity between studies included in the MA was assessed using the Higgins I2 value (Higgins and Thompson, 2002). Subgroup analyses by age group, type or severity of the children’s illness (e.g., different types of cancer), or type of intervention received (e.g., type, number and duration of sessions, frequency) could not be performed due to the limited number of studies available for each outcome. For some outcome measures, it was only possible to perform subgroup analyses based on the assessment instrument used and the type of population evaluated (both parents versus mothers only).

Publication bias was visually analysed using the funnel plot and statistically with the Egger’s test (Sterne et al., 2001), when there were eight or more studies. The results of studies that could not be included in the MA, as well as outcomes reported in only one study, are presented narratively.

 Results Results of the search

The initial search of RCTs in the electronic databases yielded 1,487 references without duplicates. After screening by title and abstract, 135 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-eight additional records were identified from other systematic reviews, citation searching, and Embase active alerts. Forty references, corresponding to 36 studies involving parents of children with cancer, were finally included (Figure 1).

Flowchart of study selection according to PRISMA guidelines.

Flowchart of study selection process. Left side: 2,020 records identified from databases, 533 removed as duplicates, 1,487 screened, 1,352 excluded, 135 sought for retrieval, 3 not retrieved, 135 assessed for eligibility, with 99 excluded for reasons like intervention and participants. 36 studies included, 40 reports. Right side: 124 records from other methods, 2 not retrieved, 66 assessed for eligibility, 44 excluded for reasons like design and participants. Methodological quality

According to the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, a high risk of bias in any of the assessed domains, or an unclear risk of bias in multiple domains, led to an overall rating of high risk of bias (Sterne et al., 2019). Consequently, none of the studies included were rated as having a low risk of bias (see Supplementary Figure S1). Several studies did not provide information on the blinding procedures carried out, but given the characteristics of the interventions, the intervention provider could not be blinded to the conditions of the groups. Most studies used patient-reported measures (e.g., quality of life, anxiety, depression), and the evaluator was not blinding.

 Study characteristics

The main characteristics of the included studies are summarised in Table 1. Of the 36 studies included, two (in four references) (Ebrahimi et al., 2019; Cho et al., 2023; Akard et al., 2021a,b) evaluated the effectiveness of psychological interventions in both children and their parents. Although the review was designed to capture studies involving parents of children eligible for PPC across a range of life-limiting conditions, all included RCT were conducted in paediatric oncology settings. Only one study, reported across multiple publications (Cho et al., 2023; Akard et al., 2021a,b) was explicitly conducted in the context of PPC with children with advanced cancer and their parents. Sixteen studies (44.4%) involved only mothers.

Summary of main characteristics of the included studies.

Study (year) country Setting Participants Intervention Control Duration Follow up Outcomes (scale)
Characteristics of Participants Children eligible for PPC Content Type (format) Number of sessions (frequency) and duration (min) Provider
Bahrami et al. (2020), Iran Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 60 (GI: 30; GC: 30)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 32.38 ± 5.0Age range: N.R. N = 60 (GI: 30; GC: 30)Females: 28.33%Mean age (years) ± SD: 7.75 ± 3.6Type of cancer: leukaemia (65%), Wilms tumour (10%), lymphoma (6.67%), brain tumour (6.67%), neuroblastoma (6.67%), sarcoma (5%) Emotional regulation training based on Gross’s psychological model N.R. (face-to-face) 8 sessions(1 per week)90 min/session Psychiatric nurse and researcher Usual care (unspecified) 4 weeks 3 months Anxiety (BAI)
Cernvall et al. (2015, 2017), Sweden Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 58 (GI:31; GC:27)Females: 67%Mean age (years) ± SD: 38 ± 7.2Age range: N.R. N = 46 (GI: 25; GC: 21)Females: 54%Mean age (years) ± SD: 5 ± 9.0Type of cancer: leukaemia (52%), sarcoma (17%), central nervous system tumours (15%), lymphoma (7%), other malignant tumours (9%) Online guided self-help program, based on the Cognitive-behavioural therapy + Usual care Individual (online-Website) 9 sessions (modules)(1 per week)N.R. min/session One psychologist and two non-licensed psychologists with master’s degrees, supervised by the first Usual care (standard psychosocial services) 10 weeks 12 months Post-traumatic stress (PCL)Depression (BDI)Anxiety (BAI)
Damreihani et al. (2018), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 50 (GI: 25; GC: 25)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 35.55 ± 5.6Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (100%) Positive psychology intervention (task-oriented to improve skills and positive emotions) Group (face-to-face) 6 sessions(N.R. frequency)120 min/session N.R. No intervention N.R. 1 month Hope (SHS)Psychological Well-being (PWBS)Purpose in Life (MLQ)Life Satisfaction (SWLS)
Delavari et al. (2014), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 30 (GI: 15; GC: 15)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: N.R. Logotherapy Group (face-to-face) 9 sessions(1 per week)90 min/session Therapist (unspecified) No intervention 9 weeks – Depression (BDI)Anxiety (BAI)
Gholamian et al. (2021), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 44 (GI: 22; GC: 22)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 37.33 ± 6.58Age range: N.R. N = 42 (GI: 20; GC: 22)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (50%), haemolytic anaemia (17%), brain tumour (14%), sarcoma (12%), neck tumour (7%) Peer-to-peer self-help group program (psychoeducation, thought re-evaluation, anxiety management, etc.) Group (face-to-face) 8 sessions(N.R. frequency)45–60 min/session+follow-up calls 20–40 min each Psychiatrist and oncology nurse Usual care (cancer information leaflet) 12 weeks – Anxiety (HAM-A)
Hoekstra-Weebers et al. (1998), Netherlands Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 81 (GI: 39; GC: 42)Females: 50.62%Mean age (years) ± SD: 36.6 ± 5.4Age range: 24–53 years N = 41 (N.R. per group)Females: 43.9%Mean age (years) ± SD: 6.4 4.7Age range: 0–16 yearsType of cancer: leukaemia (42%), lymphoma (17%), tumour de Wilms (11%), brain tumour (10%), sarcoma (10%), endocrine tumour (5%), other types of cancer (5%) Guided intervention focused on cognitive-behavioural techniques and psychoeducation (problem solving, assertiveness, etc.) + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 8 sessions(1 every 3 weeks)90 min/session Psychologist Usual care (routine medical care was provided by paediatricians and nurses. A social worker offered psychosocial support after diagnosis, and subsequent contact was initiated by the family) 24 weeks 6 months Anxiety (STAI-S)Psychiatric symptoms (SCL-90)General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)
Hoseinzadeh et al. (2019), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 48 (GI: 24; GC: 24)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 34.26 ± 6.77Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: N.R. Resilience-based intervention (self-esteem, problem-solving, emotional management, etc.) Group (face-to-face) 6 sessions(N.R. frequency)60–90 min/session N.R. No intervention N.R. 3 months Coping (CHIP)
Jamali et al. (2019), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 74 (GI: 36; GC: 38)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (100%) Peer-led psychoeducation group program focused on resilience (goal setting, stress management, resilience-enhancing strategies, etc.) Group (face-to-face) 5 sessions(1 daily for 5 days)90 min/session Peer educator: mother of a minor who had already finished chemotherapy, trained in group sessions (3 sessions of 1 h each) Usual care (unspecified) 5 días 2 months Resilience (CD-RISC)
Jay and Elliott (1990), USA Hospital Parents of children with cancer undergoing bone marrow biopsy or lumbar puncturesN = 72 (GI: 24; GC: 24)Females: 79%Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Age range: 22–62 years N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (100%) Stress inoculation for parents (modelling, self-instruction, relaxation and guided imagery) Individual (face-to-face) 1 session45 min PhD students in psychology No intervention N.A. – Distress (PBS)Anxiety (STAI-S)
Jin et al. (2023), China Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 40 (GI: 20; GC: 20)Females: 80%Mean age (years) ± SD: 34.70 ± 4.53Age range: N.R. N = 40 (GI: 20; GC: 20)Females: 45%Mean age (years) ± SD: 7.35 ± 3.74Type of cancer: haematological (82.5%), solid tumours (17.5%) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy + Usual care Individual (face-to-face or online) 4 sessions(1 per week)45–60 min/session PhD student in nursing with training in acceptance and commitment therapy (14-day course) Usual care (unspecified) 4 weeks – Stress (DASS-21)Quality of life (PedsQL-Parent Scale)Emotional impact of the child’s illness (PECI)
Joosten et al. (2024), Netherlands Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 89 (GI: 43; GC: 46)Females: 86%Mean age (years) ± SD: 41.9 ± 7.45Age range: N.R. N = 89 (GI: 43; GC: 46)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 10.1 ± 5.65Type of cancer: haematological (48.3%), solid tumours (29.2%), brain tumour (22.5%) Active coping skills program (Op Koers Online) based on cognitive-behavioural and acceptance and commitment techniques Group (face-to-face or online) 6 sessions(1 per week)90 min/session+1 booster session 5 months after the 1st session Social worker or psychologist, supervised by a health psychologist No intervention 6 weeks 6 months Anxiety y Depression (PROMIS)Distress (DT-P)Emotional reactions related to the illness (SSER-Q)Coping (OK-Q y CCSS-P)
Kaboudi et al. (2018), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 60 (GI: 30; GC: 30)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 38.85 ± 11.89Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (100%) Resilience training program (familiarization with the concept of resilience and the characteristics of resilient people, internal and external support factors, and ways to build resilience) Group (face-to-face) 9 sessions(1 per week)60 min/session Doctor of Psychology with specific training in the resilience program No intervention 9 weeks – Coping (SCQ)Stress (PSS)
Kazak et al. (2005), USA Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 38 (GI: 18; GC: 20)Females: 52.6%Median age: 37 years N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (42%), solid tumours (31.6%), brain tumours (26.4%) Adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy program + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 3 sessions(depending on family availability)45 min/session Psychologists with specific training in the program Usual care (routine psychosocial care that included the assignment of a social worker, who provided resources and information about diagnosis and treatment and offered support. Psychologists were available by referral to address behavioural concerns of the child and family) N.R. – Anxiety (STAI-S)
Khosrobeigi et al. (2022), Iran Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 30 (GI: 15; GC: 15)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 41.49 ± 4.11Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: N.R. Compassion Therapy (mindfulness, compassionate thinking and behaviour, breathing, mental visualization, empty chair technique, etc.) Individual (face-to-face) 8 sessions(1 per week)90 min/session Psychotherapist with experience and training in the field No intervention 8 weeks – Resilience (CD-RISC) Hopelessness (BHS)
Latifi et al. (2021), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 100 (GI: 50; GC: 50)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 34.33 ± 6.42Age range: N.R. N = 100 (GI: 50; GC: 50)Females: 44%Mean age (years) ± SD: 5.43 ± 2.89Type of cancer: N.R. Cognitive-emotional intervention Group (face-to-face) 5 sessions(2 per week)60–90 min/session Nurse with a master’s degree in psychiatric nursing and clinical experience in oncology, under the supervision of a person with a doctorate in counselling Usual care (unspecified) 2–3 weeks 4 months Distress (KPD)
Luo et al. (2021a), China Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 103 (GI: 52; GC: 51)Females: 69.9%Mean age (years) ± SD: 33.6 ± 5.2Age range: N.R. N = 89 (GI: 43; GC: 46)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 5.9 ± 3.9Type of cancer: haematological (67%), solid tumours (33%) Online resilience training program with content on relaxation, meditation, mindful breathing, problem-solving, cognitive strategies for thought management, etc. Individual (mobile App) 8 online sessions/publications(1 per week)+15 min/session self-administered (online) Self-administered (online)Content developed by: professors of psychology, psycho-oncology, and paediatric oncology; paediatric oncology nurses; and a researcher trained in resilience programs Usual care (health education in online format: information for the care of children with cancer: oral care, symptom management, infection prevention, etc.) 8 weeks 6 months Resilience (CD-RISC)Depression (SRDS)Quality of life (SF-6D)
Manne et al. (2016), USA Hospital Parents of children with cancer undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantationN = 218 (GI: 110; GC: 108)Females: 88%Mean age (years) ± SD: 37.4 ± 8.1Age range: N.R. N = 89 (GI: 43; GC: 46)Females: N.R. Mean age (years) ± DE: 5.9 ± 3.9Type of cancer: haematological (67%), solid tumours (33%) Brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (relaxation, problem-solving, cognitive restructuring, etc.) Individual (face-to-face) 5 sessions(N.R. frequency)60 min/session Psychologists Usual care (materials on the emotional responses of caregivers and children to bone marrow transplantation, issues related to hospitalisation and communication with the child) 2–3 weeks 6 and 12 months Depression (BDI)Anxiety (BAI)Post-traumatic stress (IES)Psychological well-being (MHI)
Marsland et al. (2013), USA Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 45 (GI:30; GC: 15)Females: 98%Mean age (years) ± SD: 41 ± 8Age range: 28–53 years N = 45 (GI: 30; GC: 15)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 13.05 ± 3Type of cancer: leukaemia o lymphoma (78.4%), solid tumours (21.6%) Multimodal intervention for stress management based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, emotional stress management, visual imagery, etc.) Individual (face-to-face) 6 sessions(1 every 2–3 weeks)30–60 min/session Physicians Usual care (access to a social worker if required, but not preventive psychosocial intervention) 17–26 weeks – Depression (BDI)Anxiety (STAI-S)Stress (PSS)Post-traumatic stress (IES)
Marsland et al. (2020), USA Hospital and Home Mothers of children with cancerN = 120 (GI: 60; GC: 60)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 36 ± 8Age range: 19–57 years N = 120 (GI: 60; GC: 60)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (55%), sarcoma (20.8%), neuroblastoma (9.2%), lymphoma (7.5%), other types of cancer (7.5%) Multimodal intervention for stress management based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, emotional stress management, visual imagery, etc.) Individual (face-to-face + phone calls) 12 sessions(6 in-person sessions of 50–60 min each +6 phone calls of 30 min each) Physicians and psychologists Usual care (access to a social worker if required, but not preventive psychosocial intervention) 8–30 weeks 12 months Depression (BDI)Anxiety (STAI-S)Stress (PSS)Post-traumatic stress (IES)Quality of life (RAND-36)
Mullins et al. (2012), USA Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 52 (GI: 27; GC:25)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 35.09 ± 6.93Age range: 22–55 years N = 52 (GI: 76; GC: 25)Females: 46.2%Mean age (years) ± SD: 8.19 ± 4.54Type of cancer: N.R. Cognitive-behavioural therapy (cognitive coping, problem-solving, etc.) Individual (face-to-face) 12 sessions(1 per week)45–60 min/session Psychologist + nurse Usual care (standard psychosocial care) (ad hoc care from the oncology team, including a psychologist, if needed during hospitalisation and outpatient visits) 12 weeks 3 months Post-traumatic stress (IES)Psychiatric symptoms (SCL-90)Caregiver burden (CMCC)
Ozturk and Katikol (2024), Türkiye Hospital and Home Mothers of children with cancerN = 50 (GI: 25; GC: 25)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 36.88 ± 5.4Age range: 23–47 years N = 50 (GI: 25; GC: 25)Females: 54%Mean age (years) ± SD: 11.72 ± 3.61Type of cancer: lymphoma (38%), leukaemia (36%), sarcoma de Ewing (14%), osteosarcoma (10%), ependymoma (2%) Online relaxation program based on cognitive-behavioural techniques and mindfulness (progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery, mindfulness-based cognitive coping techniques, etc.) Individual (mobile App) + Group (face-to-face) 7 sessions:2 sessions face-to-face(1 per week)N.R. min/session+5 at home sessions (practice at least twice a week) Online program (mHealth) unspecified Usual care (routine psychosocial support) 8 weeks – Anxiety (STAI-S)Coping (SCS)
Park et al. (2023), South Korea Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 40 (GI: 20; GC: 21)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 42.25 ± 4.5Age range: N.R. N = 40 (GI: 20; GC: 21)Females: 46%Mean age (years) ± SD: 10.42 ± 4.4Type of cancer: leukaemia (80.49%), lymphoma (19.51%) Online program for promoting family resilience (emotional expression, coping strategies, etc.) Individual (online) 4 sessions(1 per week)70 min/session Paediatric Nurse Usual care (unspecified) 4 weeks 1 month Resilience (WQ)Depression (BDI)
Phiri et al. (2025), China Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 118 (GI: 59; GC: 59)Females: 84.7%Mean age (years) ± SD: 34.25 ± 9.03 N = 118 (GI: 59; GC: 59)Females: 38.1%Mean age (years) ± SD: 7.95 ± 4.18Type of cancer: leukaemia (35.6%), lymphoma (41.5%), retinoblastoma (0.8%), Wilms tumour (18.6%), other types of cancer (3.4%) Multicomponent group psychoeducational intervention (health education, coping skills training, stress management techniques training and psychological support) Group (face-to-face) 36 sessions(6 per week)60 min/session Nurse Usual care (routine health education, material support, food, and transport during follow-up visits) 6 weeks 3 months Anxiety (GAD-7)Depression (PHQ-7)Quality of life (SF-12)Coping (COPE)
Porter et al. (2019), USA Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 42 (GI:30; GC: 12)Females: 50%Mean age (years) ± SD: 39 ± 7.05Age range: N.R. N = 120 (GI: 60; GC: 60)Females: 45%Mean age (years) ± SD: 8.1 ± 5.3Type of cancer: leukaemia (38%), central nervous system tumours (24%), sarcoma (14%), other types of cancer (24%) Couples therapy (problem-solving, emotional management, etc.) In pairs (face-to-face) 6 sessions(1 every 2 weeks)60 min/session Social Worker Active control (health education: importance of rest, nutrition, physical activity, etc. Six sessions of 60 min each.) 12 weeks – Resilience (PTGI)Emotional impact of the child’s illness (PECI)
Pouraboli et al. (2019), Iran Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 120 (GI: 60; GC: 60)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 37.48 ± 11.76Age range: N.R. N = N.R.Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (100%) Progressive Muscle Relaxation Training Group (face-to-face) 8 sessions(2 per week)20 min/session Researcher No intervention 4 weeks – Anxiety (STAI-S)Fatigue (BFI)Sleep quality (PSQI)
Safarabadi-Farahani et al. (2016), Iran Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 62 (GI: 31; GC: 31)Females: 95%Mean age (years) ± SD: 33.73 ± 6.27Age range: 24–47 years N = 62 (GI: 31; GC: 31)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 6.04 ± 4.07Type of cancer: brain tumour (50%), haematological (27.42%), other types of cancer (22.58%) Brief psychosocial intervention for quality of life (problem-solving, emotional management, etc.) + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 5 sessions(1 per week)30–90 min/session+5 follow-up calls(1 per week) Social Worker Usual care (includes advice and financial support) 5 weeks 1 month Quality of life (CQOLC)
Sahler et al. (2002), USA and Israel Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 92 (GI: 50; GC: 42)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 35.35 ± 6.64Age range: N.R. N = 92 (GI: 50; GC: 42)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 8.38 ± 5.57Type of cancer: leukaemia (47.8%), lymphoma (12%), brain tumour (15.2%), other types of cancer (25%) Problem-solving training program + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 8 sessions(1 per week)60 min/session Psychologist Usual care (includes an initial psychosocial assessment by a mental health professional, with referral to psychiatric/psychological, social work or child development support intervention as needed) 8 weeks 3 months Coping (SPSI-C)Negative mood (POMS)
Sahler et al. (2005), USA and Israel Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 430 (GI: 217; GC: 212)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 35.5 ± N.R.Age range: N.R. N = 429 (GI: 217; GC: 212)Females: 49%Mean age (years) ± SD: 7.6 ± N.R.Type of cancer: leukaemia (42.42%), brain tumour (14.92%), lymphoma no Hodgkin (7.93%), Hodgkin’s disease (4.43%), other types of cancer (29.61%) Problem-solving training program + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 8 sessions(1 per week)60 min/session N.R. Usual care (includes an initial comprehensive assessment by a mental health professional within the first few days of diagnosis. Social work, psychological, psychiatric, or other intervention is provided or recommended as needed) 8 weeks 6 months Coping (SPSI-R)Negative mood (POMS)Depression (BDI)Post-traumatic stress (IES)
Salem et al. (2021), Denmark Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 204 (GI: 94; GC: 110)Females: 50%Mean age (years) ± SD: 36.5 ± N.R. yearsAge range: N.R. N = 204 (GI: 94; GC: 110)Females: 21.6%Mean age (years) ± SD: 4 ± N.R. yearsAge range: 0–6Type of cancer: leukaemia or lymphoma (50%), brain tumour (15%), other types of cancer (35%). FAMily-Oriented Support (FAMOS) intervention (normalising thoughts related to cancer, goal setting and problem-solving and family communication and understanding) Individual (face-to-face) 5 sessions for parents(N.R. frequency)60–90 min/session Psychologists with experience in cognitive-behavioural therapy Usual psychosocial care (outpatient medical follow-up and management of late effects) 24 weeks 6 months Post-traumatic stress (HTQ-17)Anxiety (SCL-90-R)Depression (SCL-90-R)
Shakiba et al. (2020), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 100 (GI: 50; GC: 50)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 34.3 ± 6.42Age range: N.R. N = 100 (GI: 50; GC: 50)Females: 44%Mean age (years) ± SD: 5.4 ± 2.89Type of cancer: leukaemia (88.5%), other types of cancer (11.5%) Cognitive-emotional intervention (progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, emotional management, cognitive restructuring, mindfulness, etc.) Group (face-to-face) 5 sessions(2 per week)100–120 min/session Psychiatric and oncology nurse supervised by a psychological counsellor Usual care (routine nursing care provided by the chemotherapy department) 3 weeks – Post-traumatic stress (PCL)Resilience (PTGI)
Shekarabi-Ahari et al. (2012), Iran Hospital Mothers of children with cancerN = 20 (GI:10; GC: 10)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 33.35 ± 5.31Age range: N.R. N = 20 (GI:10; GC: 10)Females: 45%Mean age (years) ± SD: 6.15 ± 4.04Age range: N.R. Hope Therapy using Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy techniques (psychoeducation, cognitive distortions, and self-monitoring) Group (face-to-face) 8 sessions(1 per week)120 min/session Therapist (unspecified) No intervention 8 weeks – Depression (BDI)Hope (SHS)
Stehl et al. (2009), USA Hospital Parents of children with cancerN = 152 (GI: 76; GC: 76)Females: 50%Median age: 39 years N = 152 (GI: 76; GC: 76)Females: 46.1%Median age: 6 yearsType of cancer: leukaemia (55.3%), solid tumour (25%), brain tumour (19.7%) Adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy program + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 3 sessions(depending on family availability)45 min/session Several psychologists and a nurse with specific training in the program Usual care (routine psychosocial care that included the assignment of a social worker, who provided resources and information about diagnosis and treatment and offered support. Psychologists were available by referral to address behavioural concerns of the child and family) N.R. – Post-traumatic stress (IES)Anxiety (STAI-S)
Streisand (2000), USA Hospital Mothers of children with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantationN = 22 (GI: 11; GC: 11)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 36.8 ± 6.85Age range: N.R. N = 22 (GI: 11; GC: 11)Females: 22.7%Mean age (years) ± SD: 8.7 ± 9.7Type of cancer: N.R. Intervention based on the stress inoculation model (education, relaxation, communication) Individual (face-to-face) 1 session90 min Psychologist Usual care (unspecified) N.A. – Stress (DSI)
Tsitsi et al. (2017, 2020), Cyprus and Greece Hospital and Home Parents of children with cancerN = 54 (GI: 29; GC: 25)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 40.58 ± 6.3Age range: N.R. N = 54 (GI: 29; GC: 25)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 9.16 ± 4.88Type of cancer: leukaemia (50%), lymphoma (26.4%), sarcoma (9.4%), brain tumour (3.8%), nephroblastoma (1.9%), ectodermal tumour (1.9%), other types of cancer (5.7%) Progressive Muscle Relaxation and Guided Imagery Training + Usual care Individual (face-to-face) 3 sessions(1 per week)25 min/session+daily practice for 3 weeks Psychologist + nurse Usual care (standard psychological support provided by the doctor, nurses and psychologist of the oncology unit) 3 weeks – Anxiety (HAM-A)Negative mood (POMS)Coping (WofCC)
Studies with psychological interventions in both children and their parents
Study (year) country Setting Participants Intervention Control Duration Follow up Outcomes (scale)
Characteristics of parents Characteristics of children eligible for PPC Content Type (format) Number of sessions (frequency) and duration (min) Provider
Cho et al. (2023), Akard et al. (2021a), Akard et al. (2021b), USA Home (Hospice) Both parentsN = 150 (IG: 75; CG: 75)Females: 93%Age mean (years) ± SD: N.R.Age range: N.R. Children with advanced cancerN = 150 (GI: 37; GC: 61)Females: 57.6%Mean age (years) ± SD: 10 (N.R.)Age range: 7–17 years:Type of cancer: N.R. Legacy-making through and storytelling Individual (online-Website) N.R. Number of sessions(2 weeks)N.R. min/session Self-administered (online)Storytelling development: Nurses trained in PPC Usual care (unspecified) 4 weeks 2 months Parents:Coping (RSQ)Children:Coping (RSQ)Quality of life (PedsQL)
Ebrahimi (2019), Iran Hospital MothersN = 32 (GI: 16; GC: 16)Females: 100%Mean age (years) ± SD: 37.56 ± 6.19Age range: N.R. Children with cancerN = 32 (GI: 16; GC: 16)Females: N.R.Mean age (years) ± SD: 9.19 ± 1.15Age range: N.R.Type of cancer: N.R. Filial therapy (parent–child play therapy) Group (face-to-face) 10 sessions(1 per week)120 min/session Therapist (unspecified) No intervention 10 weeks – Mothers:Depression (DASS-21)Anxiety (DASS-21)Stress (DASS-21)Children:Depression (CDI)

CG, Control group; IG, Intervention group; N.A., Not applicable; N.R., Not reported; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI, Beck’s Depression Inventory; BFI, Brief Fatigue Inventory; BHS, Beck Hopelessness Scale; CD-RISC, Conner-Davidson Resilience Scale; CDI, Children’s Depression Inventory; CHIP, Coping Health Inventory for Parents; CMCC, Care of My Child with Cancer Scale; COPE, Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced inventory; CQOLC, Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer; DASS-21, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; DSI, Daily Stress Inventory; DT-P, Distress Thermometer for Parents; GAD-7, The General Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale; GHQ, Goldberg General Health Questionnaire; HAM-A, Hamilton Anxiety Questionnaire; HTQ-17, 17-item Harvard trauma questionnaire; IES, Impact of Event Scale; KPD, Kessler Psychological Distress scale; MHI, Mental Health Inventory; MLQ, Meaning in Life Questionnaire; OK-Q, Op Koers Questionnaire; PBS, Parent Behavior Scale; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PCL, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist; PECI, Parent Experience of Childhood Illness scale; PedsQL, Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory; POMS, Profile of Mood States; PROMIS, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Inventory; PSS, Perceived Stress Scale; PTGI, Posttraumatic Growth Inventory; PWBS, Ryff’s Psychological Well-being Scale; RSQ, Response to Stress Questionnaire; SCL-90-R, Symptom Checklist-90-Revised; SCS, Stress Coping Scale; SCQ, Styles of Coping Questionnaire; SF-6D, Short Form of the 6-Dimension Health Survey; SF-12, The Short Form 12-item Health Survey; SHS, Snyder Hope Scale; SPSI-C, Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Cancer; SPSI-R, Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised; SRDS, Self-Rating Depression Scale; SSER-Q, Situation-Specific Emotional Reaction Questionnaire; STAI-S, State–Trait Anxiety Inventory; SWLS, Satisfaction with Life Scale; WofCC, Ways of Coping Checklist; WQ, Walsh questionnaire.

The psychological interventions evaluated were heterogeneous, often implemented as multicomponent interventions, with cognitive-behavioural therapy being the most common, alongside techniques such as progressive muscle relaxation, deep breathing, guided imagery, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy, dignity therapy, play therapy, and filial therapy. Interventions were delivered individually or in groups, in-person or virtually, and could be part of multicomponent psychosocial care.

 Effects of psychological interventions for parents of children susceptible to PPC

None of the included studies reported adverse effects associated with the psychological interventions. For each outcome measure at the post-intervention time point, a subgroup analysis based on the evaluated population (both parents or mothers only) is provided in the Supplementary material.

PPC-specific oncology settings Coping and health-related quality of life

The only study explicitly conducted within a PPC setting, reported across multiple publications (Cho et al., 2023; Akard et al., 2021a,b), evaluated the effects of a single-session legacy-making intervention among children with advanced cancer and their parents. The study assessed coping outcomes in both children and parents, finding no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups 2 months after the intervention for either children (Akard et al., 2021a) or parents (Cho et al., 2023). In addition, children’s health-related quality of life was evaluated, with no significant differences observed between groups 2 months after the intervention (Akard et al., 2021b).

 Broader paediatric oncology settings Anxiety

Eighteen studies assessed anxiety symptoms in parents of children with cancer after intervention (Bahrami et al., 2020; Ebrahimi et al., 2019; Joosten et al., 2024; Kazak et al., 2005; Manne et al., 2016; Marsland et al., 2013, 2020; Ozturk and Katikol, 2024; Pouraboli et al., 2019; Stehl et al., 2009; Tsitsi et al., 2017; Cernvall et al., 2015; Delavari et al., 2014; Gholamian et al., 2021; Hoekstra-Weebers et al., 1998; Jay and Elliott, 1990; Phiri et al., 2023; Salem et al., 2021) and a MA could be conducted with 17 of them for post-intervention evaluation (Bahrami et al., 2020; Ebrahimi et al., 2019; Joosten et al., 2024; Kazak et al., 2005; Manne et al., 2016; Marsland et al., 2013, 2020; Ozturk and Katikol, 2024; Pouraboli et al., 2019; Stehl et al., 2009; Tsitsi et al., 2017; Cernvall et al., 2015; Delavari et al., 2014; Gholamian et al., 2021; Phiri et al., 2023; Salem et al., 2021; Hoekstra-Weebers et al., 1998) (N = 1,289) and at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up assessments.

The studies included in the MA encompassed a wide range of psychological interventions, reflecting substantial heterogeneity in their theoretical foundations and formats. Overall, the interventions were: emotional regulation training based on Gross’s psychological model (Bahrami et al., 2020), online guided self-help program based on cognitive-behavioural therapy (Cernvall et al., 2015), logotherapy (Delavari et al., 2014), filial therapy (Ebrahimi et al., 2019), peer self-help group program (Gholamian et al., 2021), an online active coping skills program based on cognitive-behavioural and acceptance and commitment techniques (Joosten et al., 2024), an adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy program (Kazak et al., 2005; Stehl et al., 2009; Salem et al., 2021), brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (Manne et al., 2016), a multimodal intervention for stress management based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (Marsland et al., 2013, 2020), an online relaxation program based on cognitive-behavioural techniques and mindfulness (Ozturk and Katikol, 2024), psychoeducational intervention (Phiri et al., 2023), a guided intervention focused on cognitive-behavioural techniques and psychoeducation (Hoekstra-Weebers et al., 1998), progressive muscle relaxation training (Pouraboli et al., 2019) and progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery training (Tsitsi et al., 2017). The duration of the interventions ranged from 3 to 12 sessions.

The results of the MA showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group in the reduction of anxiety symptoms after the intervention (g = −1.00; 95% CI: −1.49, −0.52; I2 = 94%; p < 0.00001) but not at 3, 6, or 12-month follow-up assessments (Figure 2). Regarding publication bias, the Egger’s test was not significant (see Supplementary Figure S2). A subgroup analysis by population (studies including only mothers versus studies including both parents) found no statistically significant difference between subgroups post-intervention (see Supplementary Figure S3).

Anxiety.

Forest plot showing the standard mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals for studies assessing intervention versus control. The plot is divided into four categories based on follow-up duration: post-intervention, three-month, six-month, and twelve-month. Each study's SMD is represented by a square, while pooled effects are denoted by diamonds. The overall effect favors the intervention with significant heterogeneity across studies (I² = 94%). Subgroup analysis exhibits varied effects, with the most substantial impact observed post-intervention. The plot includes heterogeneity statistics and an overall effect test.

Additionally, of the studies that could not be included in the MA for this outcome measure, Jay and Elliott (1990) observed no statistically significant differences between groups after a stress inoculation session to improve anxiety symptoms in parents of children with cancer during invasive medical procedures (bone marrow biopsy or lumbar puncture). Meanwhile, Cernvall et al. (2017), a follow-up to Cernvall et al. (2015), found statistically significant differences in favour of the intervention group 1 year after the intervention (p < 0.001).

 Depression

Thirteen studies evaluated symptoms of depression in parents of children with cancer (Sahler et al., 2005; Shekarabi-Ahari et al., 2012; Marsland et al., 2013; Delavari et al., 2014; Cernvall et al., 2015; Manne et al., 2016; Cernvall et al., 2017; Ebrahimi et al., 2019; Marsland et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2021a; Salem et al., 2021; Park et al., 2023; Phiri et al., 2023; Joosten et al., 2024) and a MA could be conducted with 10 of them for post-intervention evaluation (Marsland et al., 2013; Delavari et al., 2014; Cernvall et al., 2015; Manne et al., 2016; Ebrahimi et al., 2019; Marsland et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2021a; Salem et al., 2021; Phiri et al., 2023; Joosten et al., 2024) (N = 900) and 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up assessments.

The psychological interventions included in the MA were highly heterogeneous and encompassed a wide range of approaches, including: an online guided self-help program based on cognitive-behavioural therapy (Cernvall et al., 2015), logotherapy (Delavari et al., 2014), filial therapy (Ebrahimi et al., 2019), an online active coping skills program based on cognitive-behavioural and acceptance and commitment techniques (Joosten et al., 2024), an online resilience training program (Luo et al., 2021a), brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (Manne et al., 2016), an adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy program (Salem et al., 2021), psychoeducational intervention (Phiri et al., 2023), and a multimodal stress management intervention based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (Marsland et al., 2013, 2020). The duration of the interventions ranged from 3 to 12 sessions.

The results of the MA showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group in the reduction of depression symptoms after the intervention (g = −0.77; 95% CI: −1.15, −0.39; I2 = 85%; p < 0.0001) and at 3 month follow-up (1 study) (g = −0.74; 95% CI: −1.14, −0.35; p = 0.0002), but not at 6- or 12-month follow-up (Figure 3). Regarding publication bias, the Egger’s test was not significant (see Supplementary Figure S4). A subgroup analysis by population (studies including only mothers versus studies including both parents) found no statistically significant difference between subgroups (see Supplementary Figure S5).

Depression.

Forest plot showing standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for various studies comparing intervention and control groups. Subgroup analyses include post-intervention, three-month, six-month, and twelve-month follow-ups. Diamonds and squares represent effect sizes and weights, respectively. Statistical measures like heterogeneity and overall effect are provided for each subgroup and collectively.

Additionally, among the four studies that could not be included in the MA due to insufficient data, three reported statistically significant improvements in favour of the intervention group (p < 0.001). These effects were observed following a problem-solving training program (8 sessions) (Sahler et al., 2005) and Hope Therapy based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (8 sessions) (Shekarabi-Ahari et al., 2012), as well as at 6-month (Sahler et al., 2005) and 12-month follow-up (Cernvall et al., 2017). In contrast, the study by Park et al. (2023) found no statistically significant differences between groups in depressive symptoms following an online family resilience program (4 sessions).

Regarding child outcomes, Ebrahimi et al. (2019), reported a significant reduction in depressive symptoms favoring the filial therapy group (10 sessions) compared with the control group at post-intervention (p < 0.001).

 Health-related quality of life

An MA was conducted including four of the five studies that evaluated health-related quality of life of parents of children with cancer after the intervention and 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up (Safarabadi-Farahani et al., 2016; Marsland et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2021a; Jin et al., 2023) (N = 302).

The psychological interventions evaluated were acceptance and commitment therapy (Jin et al., 2023), a multimodal stress management intervention based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (Marsland et al., 2020), an online resilience training program (Luo et al., 2021a), and a brief psychosocial intervention based on problem-solving, emotional management, etc. (Safarabadi-Farahani et al., 2016). The duration of the interventions ranged from 4 to 12 sessions.

The MA showed no statistically significant differences between groups in health-related quality of life improvement at post-intervention or at 6- or 12-month follow-up (one study at each follow-up time point). However, a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group was observed at 1-month follow-up (one study) (g = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.18, 1.21; p = 0.008) (Figure 4). Marsland et al. (2020) was the only one involving only mothers, and when it was removed from the MA the results remained non-significant (see Supplementary Figure S6). Phiri et al. (2025), which could not be included in the MA, also found no statistically significant differences between groups post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up.

Health-related quality of life.

Forest plot showing standardized mean differences between intervention and control groups across various studies. Subgroup analyses include post-intervention, one-month, six-month, and twelve-month follow-ups. Each study's results are plotted with 95% confidence intervals, revealing varying degrees of effect size. The overall effect size for each subgroup is summarized, illustrating heterogeneity and significance levels. Posttraumatic stress

Eight studies assessed posttraumatic stress symptoms in parents of children with cancer (Sahler et al., 2005; Stehl et al., 2009; Mullins et al., 2012; Marsland et al., 2013, 2020; Cernvall et al., 2015; Manne et al., 2016; Shakiba et al., 2020), and a MA was available for seven of them for post-intervention evaluation (Stehl et al., 2009; Marsland et al., 2013, 2020; Cernvall et al., 2015; Manne et al., 2016; Shakiba et al., 2020; Salem et al., 2021) (N = 724) and 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up.

The psychological interventions evaluated were: an online guided self-help program based on cognitive-behavioural therapy (Cernvall et al., 2015), an adapted cognitive-behavioural therapy and family therapy program (Stehl et al., 2009; Salem et al., 2021), brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (Manne et al., 2016), a multimodal stress management intervention based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (Marsland et al., 2013, 2020), a problem-solving training program (Sahler et al., 2005), and cognitive-emotional training (Shakiba et al., 2020). The duration of the interventions ranged from 3 to 12 sessions.

The MA showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group in the reduction of posttraumatic stress symptoms at 12-month follow-up (g = −0.29; 95% CI: −0.55, −0.03; I2 = 0%; p = 0.03), but not at post-intervention or at 6-month follow-up (Figure 5). A subgroup analysis by population (studies including only mothers versus studies including both parents) found no statistically significant differences between groups (see Supplementary Figure S7).

Posttraumatic stress symptoms.

Forest plot displaying standardized mean differences (SMD) for intervention versus control groups across three time points: post-intervention, six-month follow-up, and twelve-month follow-up. Each study within these subgroups lists mean, standard deviation, total participants, and weight. The plot includes confidence intervals for each study, with summary diamonds representing overall effect sizes for each subgroup. Heterogeneity statistics, including Tau², Chi², and I², are provided, with tests for overall effect and subgroup differences indicated at the bottom.

Regarding the studies that could not be included in the MA due to insufficient data, two reported statistically significant improvements in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group both after the intervention (Sahler et al., 2005; Mullins et al., 2012) and at 6-month follow-up (p < 0.001) (Sahler et al., 2005).

 Psychological distress

Four studies assessed psychological distress symptoms in parents of children with cancer (Jay and Elliott, 1990; Latifi et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2023; Joosten et al., 2024) and a MA could be conducted with two of them for post-intervention assessment (N = 125) (Jin et al., 2023; Joosten et al., 2024) as well as at 6-month follow-up.

The psychological interventions included in the MA were acceptance and commitment therapy (Jin et al., 2023) and an online active coping skills program based on cognitive-behavioural and acceptance and commitment techniques (Joosten et al., 2024). The duration of the interventions were 4 and 6 sessions, respectively.

The results of the MA showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group versus the control group in the reduction of psychological distress symptoms after the intervention (g = −0.39; 95% CI: −0.75, −0.04; I2 = 0%; p = 0.03) but not at 6-month follow-up (1 study) (Figure 6). No subgroup analyses were performed.

Psychological distress symptoms.

Forest plot showing standardized mean differences of intervention vs. control in two subgroups: post-intervention and six-month follow-up. Post-intervention shows a mean difference of -0.39, six-month follow-up shows -0.14. Overall mean difference is -0.29 with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity statistics indicate consistency across studies.

Regarding the studies that did not provide the necessary data to be included in the MA for this outcome measure, the results are heterogeneous. On the one hand, the study by Jay and Elliott (1990) (N = 72), which evaluated a stress inoculation session, did not observe statistically significant differences between groups. On the other hand, the study by Latifi et al. (2021) that evaluated a 5-session cognitive-emotional intervention found a statistically significant reduction in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group at the 4-month follow-up (p < 0.001).

 Stress

An MA was conducted with five studies assessing stress symptoms in parents of children with cancer at post-intervention and 12-month follow-up (Streisand, 2000; Marsland et al., 2013, 2020; Kaboudi et al., 2018; Ebrahimi et al., 2019) (N = 246).

The psychological interventions evaluated were child-centred therapy delivered to parents (Ebrahimi et al., 2019), a resilience training program (Kaboudi et al., 2018), an intervention based on the stress inoculation model (Streisand, 2000), and a multimodal stress management intervention based on cognitive-behavioural techniques (Marsland et al., 2013, 2020). The duration of the interventions ranged from 1 to 12 sessions.

The MA results showed no statistically significant differences between groups in stress reduction after the intervention or at 12-month follow-up (1 study) (Figure 7). Marsland et al. (2013) was the only study including both parents, and when it was excluded from the MA the results change to a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group at post-intervention (g = −1.45; 95% CI: −2.70, −0.21; I2 = 92%; p = 0.02) (see Supplementary Figure S8).

Stress symptoms.

Forest plot comparing intervention and control groups post-intervention and at twelve-month follow-up. Various studies are listed with mean, standard deviation, sample size, and weight. Standard mean differences with confidence intervals are shown. The overall effect shows slight favor to intervention. Heterogeneity stats indicate variability among studies. Coping

Seven studies evaluated coping in parents of children with cancer (Sahler et al., 2002, 2005; Kaboudi et al., 2018; Hoseinzadeh et al., 2019; Tsitsi et al., 2020; Joosten et al., 2024; Ozturk and Katikol, 2024; Phiri et al., 2025) and an MA was conducted with two of them for post-intervention evaluation (Kaboudi et al., 2018; Ozturk and Katikol, 2024) (N = 210).

The psychological interventions included in the MA were an online relaxation program based on cognitive-behavioural techniques and mindfulness (Ozturk and Katikol, 2024) and a resilience training program (Kaboudi et al., 2018). The duration of the interventions were 7 and 9 sessions, respectively.

The results of the MA showed no significant difference between groups after the intervention in coping improvement (Figure 8). No subgroup analyses were performed.

Coping.

Forest plot showing results from two studies comparing intervention and control groups. Kaboudi 2018 shows a mean difference of 0.41 with a confidence interval from -0.10 to 0.93, while Ozturk 2024 shows a mean difference of 15.28 with a confidence interval from 12.11 to 18.45. The overall effect size is 7.76 with a confidence interval from -6.81 to 22.33. Heterogeneity is high with an I-squared of 99%.

Additionally, of the studies that could not be included in the MA for this outcome measure, the results are heterogeneous. In two of the included studies, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups after administering an online active coping skills program based on cognitive-behavioural and acceptance and commitment techniques (Joosten et al., 2024), and training in progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery (Tsitsi et al., 2020). In contrast, Hoseinzadeh et al. (2019) observed statistically favourable results for a resilience-based intervention both after the intervention and at the 3-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Phiri et al. (2025) found the same results after a multicomponent group psychoeducational intervention (health education, coping skills training, stress management techniques training and psychological support) (p < 0.001). Two studies evaluated problem solving in parents of children with cancer as a coping measure, although they did not provide the data necessary to be combined in an MA. The results showed a statistically significant increase in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group after the intervention (p = 0.05) (Sahler et al., 2002, 2005) and at the 3-month follow-up (p = 0.008) (Sahler et al., 2002), but not at the 6-month follow-up.

 Resilience

Six studies evaluated resilience in parents of children with cancer (Jamali et al., 2019; Porter et al., 2019; Shakiba et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2021a; Khosrobeigi et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023), and a MA was conducted with five of them for post-intervention evaluation (Jamali et al., 2019; Porter et al., 2019; Shakiba et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2021a; Khosrobeigi et al., 2022) (N = 341) and 2 and 6-month follow-up.

The psychological interventions evaluated in the MA were a peer psychoeducation program focused on resilience (Jamali et al., 2019), compassion therapy (Khosrobeigi et al., 2022), an online resilience training program (Luo et al., 2021a), couples therapy (Porter et al., 2019), and cognitive-emotional training (Shakiba et al., 2020). The duration of the interventions ranged from 5 to 8 sessions.

The MA results showed no significant differences between groups post-intervention in improvement resilience, but significant differences were observed at 2-month follow-up (1 study) (g = 1.63; IC95%: 1.10, 2.16; p < 0.00001) and 6-month follow-up (1 study) (g = 0.55; IC95%: 0.12, 0.98; p = 0.01) (Figure 9). A subgroup analysis by population (studies including only mothers versus studies including both parents) found no statistically significant difference between subgroups (see Supplementary Figure S9).

Resilience.

Forest plot showing three subgroups: post-intervention, two-month follow-up, and six-month follow-up. Each study displays mean, standard deviation, total, and weight percentages for intervention and control groups, along with standard mean differences and confidence intervals. Heterogeneity and overall effect tests are indicated per subgroup, with heterogeneity details provided for the post-intervention phase. Green squares and diamonds indicate effect sizes and confidence intervals on a scale from negative to positive values, centered at zero.

Additionally, the study by Park et al. (2023), which did not provide data for inclusion in the MA for this outcome measure, also found statistically significant results in favour of the intervention group after the intervention (p = 0.003) and at the 1-month follow-up (p < 0.05).

 Hope

Three studies evaluated hope in parents of children with cancer (Shekarabi-Ahari et al., 2012; Damreihani et al., 2018; Khosrobeigi et al., 2022), and a MA was conducted with two of them (N = 60) (Damreihani et al., 2018; Khosrobeigi et al., 2022).

The psychological interventions evaluated in the MA were a task-oriented positive psychology intervention to improve positive abilities and emotions (Damreihani et al., 2018) and compassion therapy (Khosrobeigi et al., 2022). The duration of the interventions were 6 and 8 sessions, respectively.

The MA results showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the intervention group versus the control group after the intervention in improvement hope (g = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.20, 1.26; I2 = 0%; p = 0.007) (Figure 10). No subgroup analyses were performed.

Hope.

Forest plot showing standardized mean differences for two studies: Damreihan 2018 and Khosrobeigi 2022. Both show positive effects with values of 0.75 and 0.70, respectively. The total combined effect is 0.73 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.20 to 1.26. Heterogeneity is low with a chi-squared value of 0.01, P-value of 0.93, and I-squared of 0%. The test for overall effect is significant with a Z value of 2.69 and P-value of 0.007.

Additionally, the study by Shekarabi-Ahari et al. (2012), which did not provide the necessary data for inclusion in the MA for this outcome measure, compared cognitive-behavioural-based Hope Therapy (8 sessions) also found statistically significant results in favour of the intervention group versus the control group were observed after the intervention (p = 0.001).

 Psychological well-being

An MA was conducted with two studies evaluating the psychological well-being of parents of children with cancer (N = 225) (Manne et al., 2016; Damreihani et al., 2018).

The psychological interventions evaluated were brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (Manne et al., 2016) and a task-oriented positive psychology intervention to improve positive abilities and emotions (Damreihani et al., 2018). The duration of the interventions was 5 and 6 sessions, respectively.

The MA results showed no significant differences between groups in terms of improved psychological well-being post intervention or any follow-up periods (Figure 11). No subgroup analyses were performed.

Psychological well-being.

Forest plot illustrating standard mean differences between intervention and control groups across three follow-up periods: post-intervention, six-month, and twelve-month. The plot includes studies from 2018 and 2016, with weights assigned to each study. Subtotal effects are shown per period, with heterogeneity indicated for post-intervention. Statistical tests for overall effects are provided. Green squares represent effect size estimates, and black diamonds show combined effects with confidence intervals graphed. Horizontal axis denotes standard mean difference scale ranging from -4 to 4. Emotional impact of parent experience of child’s illness

An MA was conducted with two studies evaluating the emotional impact of the experience of a child’s illness on parents of children with cancer (Porter et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2023) (N = 82).

The psychological interventions evaluated were acceptance and commitment therapy (Jin et al., 2023) and couples therapy (Porter et al., 2019). The duration of the interventions was 4 and 6 sessions, respectively.

The MA results showed no statistically significant differences between groups on any of the PECI subscales after the intervention (emotional resources, guilt and worry, unresolved grief and anger, and uncertainty about the long term) (Figure 12). No subgroup analyses were performed.

Emotional impact of the experience of a child’s illness.

Forest plot showing mean differences between intervention and control groups across four categories: emotional resources, guilt and worry, unresolved sorrow and anger, and long-term uncertainty. Each category includes multiple studies with mean differences depicted as points with confidence intervals. Subtotals and overall effects are summarized with diamonds. The overall mean difference favors the intervention group with a small, non-significant mean difference of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.35, 0.39). Heterogeneity is low across analyses. Negative mood

Three studies assessed negative mood in parents of children with cancer using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), although they did not provide combinable data for a MA for this outcome measure. Specifically, the study by Sahler et al. (2002) evaluated an 8-session problem-solving training program in mothers of children with cancer. Results showed a statistically significant improvement in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group post-intervention (p = 0.003) and at the 3-month follow-up (p = 0.003) in the total POMS score. Sahler et al. (2005) also evaluated a 8-session problem-solving training program versus usual care in mothers of children with cancer, with results showing a statistically significant improvement in favour of the intervention group post-intervention (p = 0.001) in the total POMS score. No significant differences were observed at the 6-month follow-up. Finally, the study by Tsitsi et al. (2017) evaluated a 3-session progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery program with daily home practice progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery training in parents of children with cancer. Results showed a statistically significant improvement in the intervention group post-intervention in the anxiety/tension subscale (p = 0.027), but not in the other subscales (depression, anger/hostility, fatigue, confusion). Between-group comparisons were not reported.

 Other outcomes

In relation to other outcome measures assessed in the identified studies, at least one study was found that evaluated caregiver burden, meaning and life satisfaction, disease-related emotional reactions, self-perceived general parental mental health, psychiatric symptoms, fatigue, and sleep quality.

The study by Mullins et al. (2012) evaluated a 12-sessions cognitive-behavioural therapy program aimed at improving caregiver burden perception in mothers of children with cancer. Results, measured with the Care of My Child with Cancer Scale (CMCC), showed a statistically significant reduction in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.003); however, this effect was not maintained at the 3-month follow-up.

In the study by Damreihani et al. (2018), a 6-sessions task-oriented positive psychology intervention was evaluated to enhance positive capacities and emotions to improve meaning and life satisfaction in mothers of children with cancer. Results, assessed with the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), showed statistically significant improvement in favour of the intervention group immediately post-intervention and at the 1-month follow-up (p < 0.05) for both measures.

The study by Joosten et al. (2024) evaluated a 6-sessions online active coping skills program based on cognitive-behavioural and acceptance and commitment techniques to improve disease-specific emotional reactions (anxiety, sadness or depression, irritability or frustration, shame or discomfort, hope or relief) in parents of children with cancer. Results, measured with the Situation-Specific Emotional Reaction Questionnaire (SSER-Q), showed a statistically significant reduction in the loneliness subscale in favour of the intervention group post-intervention (p < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, these differences were no longer significant, and no differences between groups were observed in the other subscales (helplessness, positive feelings, and uncertainty) at any time point.

The study by Hoekstra-Weebers et al. (1998) evaluated an 8-sessions guided intervention focused on cognitive-behavioural techniques and psychoeducation to improve self-perceived general mental health and reduce psychiatric symptoms in parents of children with cancer. Results, assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups either immediately post-intervention or at the 6-month follow-up for any outcome.

Finally, the study by Pouraboli et al. (2019) evaluated an 8-sessions progressive muscle relaxation training to improve fatigue and sleep quality in parents of children with cancer. Results, measured with the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), showed statistically significant improvements in favour of the intervention group compared to the control group post-intervention (p < 0.0001) for both outcomes.

 Discussion Effectiveness of the interventions

Psychological interventions targeting parents of children with cancer were generally associated with positive effects on psychological outcomes. Our findings align with prior literature demonstrating that psychological interventions focused on parents can meaningfully enhance their mental health and strengthen their resilience (Eccleston et al., 2015; Coughtrey et al., 2018; Law et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2021b; Sánchez-Egea et al., 2019). The evidence base primarily reflects paediatric oncology settings, with only one trial explicitly embedded in PPC. This distinction is important, as findings from oncology-specific populations may not fully generalize to broader PPC contexts.

Results indicated significant short-term improvements in anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and hope (p < 0.05) following psychological support interventions. Effects were most consistent for short-term anxiety and depression, whereas evidence for health-related quality of life, coping, and stress outcomes was mixed or largely non-significant. Evidence for sustained effects over longer follow-up periods was limited and inconsistent. Anxiety and depression effects were primarily observed immediately post-intervention, with no consistent maintenance at 6 or 12 months. In contrast, reductions in post-traumatic stress symptoms were reported mainly at longer-term follow-up rather than immediately post-intervention. Narrative findings from a small number of individual studies suggested potential improvements in caregiver burden, life satisfaction, meaning, fatigue, sleep quality, and illness understanding in specific contexts; however, these findings were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. Overall, short-term symptom improvements are more consistent than long-term effects, and sustained effects remain uncertain, potentially indicating the need for booster or stepped-care approaches. Furthermore, there was considerable heterogeneity in intervention types, delivery modes, session duration, and outcome measures across studies. Interventions ranged from single session to multi-session programs, delivered individually, in groups, or online. This substantial heterogeneity likely contributed to variability in observed effects and complicates direct comparison across studies, indicating that pooled effect sizes should be interpreted with caution and underscoring the need for standardized interventions and outcome measures in future research.

 Evidence quality and research gaps

Despite these promising results, the quality of the available evidence is limited by substantial methodological heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and limited follow-up data. High risk of bias was common across studies, including lack of randomisation concealment, blinding, and selective outcome reporting. Short follow-up periods further limit confidence in the durability of observed effects. Given the very high heterogeneity observed for key outcomes, pooled effect sizes are likely to vary according to intervention characteristics, baseline levels of distress, and the measurement instruments used. In addition, although this review was designed to evaluate psychological interventions for parents of children eligible for PPC, the available evidence was almost exclusively derived from paediatric oncology populations. Parents of children with cancer represent only a subset of the broader PPC population, as in many PPC services non-oncological conditions account for a substantial proportion of referrals, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings focused primarily on oncology populations (Maffeo et al., 2024). Consequently, the current evidence base may not adequately reflect the diversity and complexity of families typically served in PPC services, therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted as providing indirect evidence relevant to PPC. Furthermore, we were unable to determine the severity of the cancer in the children included in the studies, making it difficult to understand which subpopulation might benefit the most and which ones might have been receiving PPC.

This highlights the urgent need to investigate psychological interventions for parents of children with non-oncological life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, such as neurological, metabolic, or genetic disorders, which are also relevant to PPC. Future research should address intervention heterogeneity by focusing on more homogeneous samples, clearly describing delivery modes, dosage, theoretical frameworks, and outcome measures. Long-term follow-ups with intermediate assessments, attrition management strategies, and cost-effectiveness evaluations are essential. Future trials should explicitly report PPC involvement (team composition, timing relative to diagnosis, concurrent disease-directed treatment) to enable transferability.

 Conceptual alignment with the scope of paediatric palliative care

Only one study was conducted explicitly in the context of PPC, specifically among children with advanced cancer. The remaining studies were conducted in broader paediatric oncology settings and did not explicitly frame the care context as palliative, highlighting a gap in the literature and limiting generalizability to PPC populations. This limited representation reflects a conceptual gap between existing research and the WHO definition of PPC, which promotes an early, holistic, and continuous approach starting at the diagnosis of a life-limiting or life-threatening condition (World Health Organization, 2018).

According to this definition, PPC is not restricted to end-of-life situations, but also includes children living with serious, progressive, or incurable illnesses that threaten or limit their lives, even when their prognosis is uncertain, and their life expectancy may be relatively longer (Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and Their Families (ACT), 2009; World Health Organization, 2018). From this perspective, PPC should begin at diagnosis and can be delivered concurrently with disease-directed treatments, ensuring ongoing psychological and emotional support for children and their families (Thompson et al., 2024).

Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted as providing indirect evidence relevant to PPC, primarily reflecting parents of children with cancer who may be eligible for palliative care at different stages. Future research should explicitly adopt this broader conceptualization to evaluate psychological interventions across the full PPC continuum including non-terminal stages and earlier stages of illness where parental distress and adaptation processes are most dynamic.

 Gender perspective and family diversity

An analysis was conducted to examine whether there were differences in outcomes between studies that included both parents and those that focused solely on mothers. This was motivated because, overall, the effects of interventions were rarely evaluated separately for fathers and mothers in the included studies, which limits understanding of potential variations in individual benefits according to sex, gender, and/or parental role.

Mothers typically show greater anxiety than parents both at diagnosis and throughout the disease trajectory, commonly because the primary caregiver role is generally attributed to mothers (Clarke et al., 2009; Kohlsdorf and Costa Junior, 2012). The results of this systematic review suggest that psychological and psychoeducational support interventions have been delivered either to mothers alone or to both parents. Across studies, no statistically significant subgroup differences were detected between interventions targeting mothers only and those involving both parents for outcomes including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and resilience. Involving both parents may be feasible, although evidence regarding differential effectiveness remains limited. In contexts where only mothers participate, such as in single-parent families, interventions may still produce meaningful effects, although evidence regarding comparative effectiveness with both parents is limited. Future research should explore whether mothers and fathers participating in the same study benefit similarly from psychological support, and how intervention design can accommodate families with non-traditional caregiving roles or diverse sociocultural backgrounds. Addressing gender and family diversity in future research is essential to ensure that psychological interventions in PPC are equitable, inclusive, and responsive to different caregiving configurations.

 Clinical implications and implementation considerations

The integration of psychological care into the routine care of children with any life-threatening illness should be viewed as a core component and not limited to severe contexts, including advanced cancer or palliative care units. Implementing brief, flexible, and family-centred psychological programs within PPC services could help to alleviate emotional distress and enhancing parental coping during one of the most challenging phases of caregiving.

Embedding psychologists within interdisciplinary teams enables continuous screening, early intervention, and the prevention of cumulative psychological burden on family members. Sustainable practice also requires expanding training in paediatric palliative psychology and implementing institutional policies that formally integrate psychological care into PPC (Thompson et al., 2023, 2024). Future interventions should be theory-driven, with consistent structure, duration, and delivery format, and delivered by qualified psychologists experienced in PPC or the child’s underlying condition. Incorporating psychologists as core team members, rather than external consultants, ensures continuity and coherence in family-centred psychological support.

 Timing and targets of psychological interventions

The differential pattern of effects observed across outcomes highlights the importance of considering both the timing and the specific targets of psychological interventions for parents. It is also important to note that heterogeneity in intervention characteristics, including type, duration, delivery mode, and outcome measures, may have influenced the observed differential effects across outcomes. Some interventions targeted acute emotional distress with brief formats, whereas others addressed broader adaptation processes through longer or multi-session programs, contributing to variable responsiveness across psychological and quality-of-life outcomes. This variability underscores that effect sizes reported across studies may not be directly comparable, and conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously. Considering this heterogeneity is essential when designing future interventions and interpreting effect patterns.

Outcomes related to acute emotional distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, psychological distress, and hope, appeared to be more responsive to brief interventions, particularly in the short term. In contrast, broader or more stable dimensions of adjustment, including general psychological well-being or coping styles, showed more heterogeneous or non-significant effects.

This distinction suggests that psychological interventions in PPC may benefit from a stepped or phased approach, in which early interventions focus on alleviating acute distress, followed by more sustained or tailored support to address longer-term adaptation processes. Aligning intervention targets with parents’ evolving needs across the illness trajectory may enhance both effectiveness and clinical relevance.

 Limitations

This SR and MA have several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. Most notably, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity across the included studies, including variability in intervention type, duration, delivery format, and outcome measures. This heterogeneity, together with construct overlap and the frequent assessment of multiple outcomes, raises concerns about selective outcome reporting and multiplicity, and may have influenced the pooled effect estimates.

Studies quality limits the strength of the conclusions. Most trials were small and of low methodological quality, often lacking randomisation concealment, blind assessment, or sufficient statistical power. In addition, follow-up data were scarce, which precluded robust conclusions regarding the long-term sustainability of psychological benefits. Reporting bias cannot be excluded, since studies with non-significant results may be underrepresented. Adverse events were rarely assessed or reported, limiting conclusions about safety.

At the population level, the generalizability of the findings is restricted. Although this review focused on PPC, the evidence base identified was almost exclusively limited to paediatric oncology, which restricts the generalizability of the findings to other PPC populations, particularly those with non-oncological conditions. Additionally, most studies were conducted in high-income countries, and few reported or stratified outcomes by parental gender or family structure.

Finally, outcome assessment relied on a wide range of self-reported measures, many of which were not specifically developed or validated for parents of children in PPC contexts, potentially limiting sensitivity to change and cross-study comparability. At the review level, the exclusion of grey literature and the small number of comparable studies precluded subgroup meta-analyses.

Despite these limitations, this SR provides valuable evidence supporting the potential short-term benefits of psychological interventions for parents in the broader context of PPC and underscores the need for more rigorous, theory-driven studies with improved methodological quality, longer follow-up, and broader inclusion of non-oncological PPC populations.

 Conclusion

In summary, this SR highlights that psychological interventions for caregivers or parents of children with cancer can produce meaningful short-term improvements in anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and hope, as well as notable long-term reductions in post-traumatic stress. However, the evidence is largely derived from paediatric oncology populations and only one study was PPC-specific, limiting generalizability. Psychological interventions in paediatric oncology settings appear to reduce parental anxiety and depression in the short term and may confer longer-term benefits for post-traumatic stress symptoms, but the evidence is heterogeneous and largely not drawn from PPC settings. Nonetheless, despite these encouraging findings, the overall quality of evidence remains limited due to methodological variability, small sample sizes, high risk of bias and insufficient follow-up data.

Consequently, advancing research and clinical practice in this field requires dual commitment: methodological rigor and compassionate, family-centred care. Notably, the predominance of oncology populations and the limited involvement of psychologists in intervention delivery highlight a gap between empirical research and recommended models of comprehensive, interdisciplinary PPC. Psychological support for parents and families in PPC should be recognized not as optional, but as an essential component of quality PPC. Robust PPC-embedded trials across non-oncological conditions and culturally diverse populations are urgently needed to investigate psychological interventions for parents of children with non-oncological life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, to better understand their effectiveness and inform evidence-based clinical practice.

 Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found in the article/Supplementary material.

 Author contributions

YÁ-P: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft. AD-D: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Data curation. AR-S: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. AA-L: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. BC: Writing – review & editing. DI-V: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. VR-G: Methodology, Data curation, Writing – review & editing. AT-C: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. EH-R: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Methodology, Conceptualization. JLMG: Writing – review & editing. LP-P: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Carlos González-Rodríguez and Carlos Díaz-González for their support with documentation tasks; to Anthea Santos-Alvarez and Miguel Ángel García-Bello for their support in methodological tasks; and Valewska G. Wallis Gómez, Rafael Gómez García, Clara González-Formoso, María de los Ángeles Ferrera-Fernández and Alba López Rivero for their clinical support.

 Conflict of interest

The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1775937/full#supplementary-material

Summary risk of bias.

Anxiety: Egger’s test.

Anxiety: subgroup analysis by population.

Depression: Egger’s test.

Depression: subgroup analysis by population.

Health-related quality of life: subgroup analysis by population.

Posttraumatic stress symptoms: subgroup analysis by population.

Stress: subgroup analysis by population.

Resilience: subgroup analysis by population.

 References AbramsonA. (2022). The role of psychology in palliative care. Monit. Psychol., 53. Available online at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/feature-palliative-care (Accessed November 29, 2024). AkardT. F. DietrichM. FriedmanD. L. WrayS. GerhardtC. A. GivenB. . (2021a). Effects of a web-based pediatric oncology legacy intervention on parental coping. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 48, 309–316. doi: 10.1188/21.ONF.309-316, 33855995 AkardT. F. DietrichM. S. FriedmanD. L. WrayS. GerhardtC. A. Hendricks-FergusonV. . (2021b). Randomized clinical trial of a legacy intervention for quality of life in children with advanced Cancer. J. Palliat. Med. 24, 680–688. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2020.0139, 32996842 Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and Their Families (ACT) (2009). A guide to the development of children’s palliative care services. 3rd Edn, JohnsonM.Bristol: ACT. BahramiS. SheikhiM. R. Moradi BaglooeiM. MafiM. (2020). Effect of emotion regulation training based on the gross model on anxiety among parents of children with cancer. J. Evid. Based Care. 9, 40–47. doi: 10.22038/ebcj.2020.42462.2138 BeniniF. PapadatouD. BernadáM. CraigF. De ZenL. DowningJ. . (2022). International standards for pediatric palliative care: from IMPaCCT to GO-PPaCS. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 63, e529–e543. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.12.031, 35031506 BoydenJ. Y. HillD. L. NyeR. T. BonaK. JohnstonE. E. HindsP. . (2022). Pediatric palliative care parents’ distress, financial difficulty, and child symptoms. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 63, 271–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.08.004, 34425212 CardenasA. EsserK. WrightE. NettenK. EdwardsA. RoseJ. . (2023). Caring for the caregiver (C4C): an integrated stepped care model for caregivers of children with medical complexity. Acad. Pediatr. 23, 236–243. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2022.06.001, 35680082 CernvallM. CarlbringP. LjungmanL. LjungmanG. EssenL. (2015). Internet-based guided self-help for parents of children on cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology 24, 1152–1158. doi: 10.1002/pon.3788, 25728688 CernvallM. CarlbringP. WikmanA. LjungmanL. LjungmanG. Von EssenL. (2017). Twelve-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of internet-based guided self-help for parents of children on Cancer treatment. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:e273. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6852, 28751300 ChoE. DietrichM. S. FriedmanD. L. GilmerM. J. GerhardtC. A. GivenB. A. . (2023). Effects of a web-based pediatric oncology legacy intervention on the coping of children with Cancer. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 40, 34–42. doi: 10.1177/10499091221100809, 35535490 ClarkeN. E. McCarthyM. C. DownieP. AshleyD. M. AndersonV. A. (2009). Gender differences in the psychosocial experience of parents of children with cancer: a review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology 18, 907–915. doi: 10.1002/pon.1515, 19319828 ConnorS. R. DowningJ. MarstonJ. (2017). Estimating the global need for palliative Care for Children: a cross-sectional analysis. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 53, 171–177. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.08.020, 27765706 CoughtreyA. MillingtonA. BennettS. ChristieD. HoughR. SuM. T. . (2018). The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for psychological outcomes in pediatric oncology: a systematic review. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 55, 1004–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.09.022, 28962919 CressA. E. (2024). Psychiatry and interdisciplinary pediatric palliative care: a scoping review. Ann. Palliat. Med. 13, 415–427. doi: 10.21037/apm-23-501, 38509651 DamreihaniN. BehzadipourS. HaghpanhS. BordbarM. (2018). The effectiveness of positive psychology intervention on the well-being, meaning, and life satisfaction of mothers of children with cancer: a brief report. J. Psychosoc. Oncol. 36, 382–388. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2018.1427173, 29558290 DelavariH. NasirianM. Baezegar BafrooeiK. (2014). Logo therapy effect on anxiety and depression in mothers of children with cancer. Iran. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 4, 42–48. EbrahimiE. MirzaieH. Saeidi BorujeniM. ZahedG. Akbarzadeh BaghbanA. MirzakhaniN. (2019). The effect of filial therapy on depressive symptoms of children with Cancer and their mother’s depression, anxiety, and stress: a randomized controlled trial. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 20, 2935–2941. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.10.2935, 31653138 EcclestonC. FisherE. LawE. BartlettJ. PalermoT. M. (2015). Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015:CD009660. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009660.pub3 EdlynnE. KaurH. (2016). The role of psychology in pediatric palliative care. J. Palliat. Med. 19, 760–762. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2015.0175, 27008276 GholamianA. BahramiM. SherbafchiM. NamnabatiM. (2021). Effect of a self-help educational program with peer group on anxiety of mothers of children with cancer: a clinical trial study. J. Educ. Health Promot. 10:295. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1494_20, 34667795 HigginsJ. P. T. ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 21, 1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186, 12111919 Hoekstra-WeebersJ. E. H. M. HeuvelF. JaspersJ. P. C. KampsW. A. KlipE. C. (1998). Brief report: an intervention program for parents of pediatric Cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 23, 207–214. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/23.3.207, 9640900 HordJ. FeigS. CrouchG. HaleG. MuellerB. RogersZ. . (2014). Standards for pediatric Cancer centers. Pediatrics 134, 410–414. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1526 HoseinzadehF. RadfarM. MoghaddamtabriziF. KhalkhaliH. (2019). Effect of resilience-based group therapy intervention on coping in mothers of children with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 24, 291–295. doi: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_174_18, 31333744 JamaliA. GhaljaeiF. KeikhaeiA. JalalodiniA. (2019). Effect of peer education on the resilience of mothers of children with leukemia: a clinical trial. Med. Surg. Nurs. J. 8. doi: 10.5812/msnj.92686 JayS. M. ElliottC. H. (1990). A stress inoculation program for parents whose children are undergoing painful medical procedures. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 58, 799–804. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.58.6.799, 2292629 JinX. LiH. ChongY. Y. MannK. F. YaoW. WongC. L. (2023). Feasibility and preliminary effects of acceptance and commitment therapy on reducing psychological distress and improving the quality of life of the parents of children with cancer: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology 32, 165–169. doi: 10.1002/pon.5941, 35460318 JoostenM. M. H. Maurice-StamH. Van GorpM. BeekL. R. van Stremler- HoltenD. ScholtenL. . (2024). Efficacy of op koers online, an online group intervention for parents of children with cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology 33:e6284. doi: 10.1002/pon.6284, 38282215 KaboudiM. AbbasiP. HeidarisharafP. DehghanF. ZiapourA. (2018). The effectiveness of resilience training on the condition of coping and stress of mothers with children with leukemia. Int J Pediatr. 6, 7299–7310. doi: 10.22038/ijp.2018.29245.2559 KazakA. E. SimmsS. AlderferM. A. RourkeM. T. CrumpT. McClureK. . (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, 644–655. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi051, 16260434 KhosrobeigiM. HafeziF. NaderiF. EhteshamzadehP. (2022). Effectiveness of self-compassion training on hopelessness and resilience in parents of children with cancer. Explore 18, 357–361. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2021.04.003, 33906814 KohlsdorfM. Costa JuniorÁ. L. (2012). Psychosocial impact of pediatric cancer on parents: a literature review. Paidéia 22, 119–129. doi: 10.1590/S0103-863X2012000100014 LatifiA. SaeedinezhadF. KeikhaeiA. Miri AliabadG. (2021). The effect of cognitive-emotional intervention on psychological distress in mothers of children with cancer. Med. Surg. Nurs. J. 9. doi: 10.5812/msnj.113171 LawE. FisherE. EcclestonC. PalermoT. M. (2019). Psychological interventions for parents of children and adolescents with chronic illness. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3:CD009660. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009660.pub4, 30883665 LuoY. XiaW. CheungA. T. HoL. L. K. ZhangJ. XieJ. . (2021a). Effectiveness of a mobile device–based resilience training program in reducing depressive symptoms and enhancing resilience and quality of life in parents of children with cancer: randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 23:e27639. doi: 10.2196/27639, 34847060 LuoY. XiaW. HeX. ZhangJ. LiH. C. W. (2021b). Psychological interventions for enhancing resilience in parents of children with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer 29, 7101–7110. doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06344-0, 34131847 MaffeoM. SartorioI. FianiM. E. NicolosiB. CiofiD. (2024). Pediatric palliative care in children and young people with non-oncological diseases: a scoping review. Infermieristica J. 3, 15–25. doi: 10.36253/if-2542 ManneS. MeeL. BartellA. SandsS. KashyD. A. (2016). A randomized clinical trial of a parent-focused social-cognitive processing intervention for caregivers of children undergoing hematopoetic stem cell transplantation. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 84, 389–401. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000087, 26913620 MarslandA. L. LongK. A. HoweC. ThompsonA. L. TersakJ. EwingL. J. (2013). A pilot trial of a stress management intervention for primary caregivers of children newly diagnosed with cancer: preliminary evidence that perceived social support moderates the psychosocial benefit of intervention. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 38, 449–461. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jss173, 23341547 MarslandA. L. WalshC. P. ClearyJ. L. VaisleibA. D. FarrellC. WoodsW. C. . (2020). Efficacy of a stress management intervention for mothers of children with cancer. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 45, 812–824. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsaa058 MullinsL. L. FedeleD. A. ChaffinM. HullmannS. E. KennerC. EddingtonA. R. . (2012). A clinic-based interdisciplinary intervention for mothers of children newly diagnosed with Cancer: a pilot study. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 37, 1104–1115. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jss093, 22946083 National Guideline Alliance (UK) (2016). End of life Care for Infants, children and young people with life-limiting conditions: Planning and management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK402430/ (Accessed April 5, 2024). OzturkC. S. KatikolE. (2024). Effect of mHealth-based relaxation program on stress coping and anxiety levels in mothers of children with cancer: a randomized controlled study. Patient Educ. Couns. 123:108247. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108247, 38471311 PageM. J. McKenzieJ. E. BossuytP. M. BoutronI. HoffmannT. C. MulrowC. D. . (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 ParkM. KimS. LeeH. ShinY. J. LyuC. J. ChoiE. K. (2023). Development and effects of an internet-based family resilience-promoting program for parents of children with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 64:102332. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2023.102332, 37146351 Parlamento Europeo European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2022 towards a common European action on care (2021/2253(INI)) (2022). Available online at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0278_ES.html (Accessed November 29, 2024). PhiriL. LiW. H. C. CheungA. T. PhiriP. G. M. C. (2023). Effectiveness of psychoeducation interventions in reducing negative psychological outcomes and improving coping skills in caregivers of children with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychooncology 32, 1514–1527. doi: 10.1002/pon.6208, 37639282 PhiriL. LiH. W. C. PhiriP. G. M. C. ChoiK. C. Wanda-Kalizang'omaW. NkhandweG. (2025). Effectiveness of group-based multicomponent psychoeducational intervention on anxiety, depressive symptoms, quality of life, and coping among caregivers of children with cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 171:105205. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105205, 40939290 PoltorakD. Y. BenoreE. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral interventions for physical symptom Management in Pediatric Palliative Medicine. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 15, 683–691. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2006.02.009, 16797444 PorterL. S. BaucomD. H. BonnerM. LinardicC. KazakA. E. (2019). Parenting a child with cancer: a couple-based approach. Transl. Behav. Med. 9, 504–513. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz016, 31094434 PouraboliB. PoodinehZ. JahaniY. (2019). The effect of relaxation techniques on anxiety, fatigue and sleep quality of parents of children with leukemia under chemotherapy in south East Iran. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 20, 2903–2908. doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.10.2903, 31653133 Safarabadi-FarahaniA. MaarefvandM. BiglarianA. KhubchandaniJ. (2016). Effectiveness of a brief psychosocial intervention on quality of life of primary caregivers of Iranian children with Cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 31, e262–e270. doi: 10.1016/j.pedn.2016.01.002, 26860879 SahlerO. J. Z. FaircloughD. L. PhippsS. MulhernR. K. DolginM. J. NollR. B. . (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, 272–283. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.2.272, 15796635 SahlerO. J. Z. VarniJ. W. FaircloughD. L. ButlerR. W. NollR. B. DolginM. J. . (2002). Problem-solving skills training for mothers of children with newly diagnosed cancer: a randomized trial. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 23, 77–86. doi: 10.1097/00004703-200204000-00003, 11943969 SalemH. KazakA. E. AndersenE. W. BelmonteF. JohansenC. SchmiegelowK. . (2021). Home-based cognitive behavioural therapy for families of young children with cancer (FAMOS): a nationwide randomised controlled trial. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 68:e28853. doi: 10.1002/pbc.28853, 33369038 Sánchez-EgeaR. Rubio-AparicioM. Sánchez-MecaJ. Rosa-AlcázarA. I. (2019). Psychological treatment for family members of children with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychooncology 28, 960–969. doi: 10.1002/pon.5052, 30828897 SantiniA. AvagninaI. MarinettoA. De TommasiV. LazzarinP. PerilongoG. . (2022). The intervention areas of the psychologist in pediatric palliative care: a retrospective analysis. Front. Psychol. 13:858812. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858812, 35391957 ShakibaM. LatifiA. NavidianA. (2020). The effect of cognitive-emotional intervention on growth and posttraumatic stress in mothers of children with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 42, 118–125. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000001558, 31318821 Shekarabi-AhariG. YounesiJ. BorjaliA. Ansari-DamavandiS. (2012). The effectiveness of group hope therapy on hope and depression of mothers with children suffering from cancer in Tehran. Iran. J. Cancer Prev. 5:183. StehlM. L. KazakA. E. AlderferM. A. RodriguezA. HwangW.-T. PaiA. L. H. . (2009). Conducting a randomized clinical trial of an psychological intervention for parents/caregivers of children with cancer shortly after diagnosis. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 34, 803–816. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsn130, 19091806 SterneJ. A. C. EggerM. SmithG. D. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 323, 101–105. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101, 11451790 SterneJ. A. C. SavovićJ. PageM. J. ElbersR. G. BlencoweN. S. BoutronI. . (2019). RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898, 31462531 StreisandR. (2000). Brief report: parents of children undergoing bone marrow transplantation: documenting stress and piloting a Pschological intervention program. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 25, 331–337. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/25.5.331, 10880063 ThompsonA. L. KentorR. A. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on palliative care, end-of-life, and bereavement: integrating psychology into pediatric palliative care. Clin. Pract. Pediatr. Psychol. 9, 219–228. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000420 ThompsonA. L. KentorR. A. SchaeferM. R. McCarthyS. R. (2024). Psychologists as pivotal members of the pediatric palliative care team. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 67, e907–e913. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.02.006, 38355070 ThompsonA. L. SchaeferM. R. McCarthyS. R. HildenbrandA. K. CousinoM. K. MarsacM. L. . (2023). Competencies for psychology practice in pediatric palliative care. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 48, 614–622. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsad007, 37141582 TsitsiT. CharalambousA. PapastavrouE. RaftopoulosV. (2017). Effectiveness of a relaxation intervention (progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery techniques) to reduce anxiety and improve mood of parents of hospitalized children with malignancies: a randomized controlled trial in Republic of Cyprus and Greece. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 26, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2016.10.007, 28069156 TsitsiT. RaftopoulosV. PapastavrouE. CharalambousA. (2020). Progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery as techniques to enhance the way of coping of parents of children with malignancies: findings from a randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 46:101718. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2019.101718, 32361196 VerberneL. M. KarsM. C. van Schouten- MeeterenA. Y. N. Van Den BerghE. M. M. BosmanD. K. ColenbranderD. A. . (2019). Parental experiences and coping strategies when caring for a child receiving paediatric palliative care: a qualitative study. Eur. J. Pediatr. 178, 1075–1085. doi: 10.1007/s00431-019-03393-w World Health Organization (2018). Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into paediatrics. A WHO guide for health-care planners, implementers and managers. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Edited by: Livia Costa De Oliveira, National Cancer Institute (INCA), Brazil

Reviewed by: Luca Giacomelli, Polistudium srl, Italy

Razieh Safarifard, Dublin City University, Ireland

https://www.sign.ac.uk/using-our-guidelines/methodology/search-filters/