| Literature DB >> 32116953 |
Alicia Carrion-Plaza1, Javier Jaen2, Inmaculada Montoya-Castilla1.
Abstract
Childhood cancer involves long periods of hospitalization that trigger emotions such as fear or sadness. Previous research has studied the positive effects of technology games on improving the hospitalization experience, but most do not focus on caregivers and none allow interaction with the real time observation of a zoo. The present study evaluates the impact of HabitApp and assesses the short-term impact on the psychosocial state of patients and caregivers in order to improve the hospitalization experience. The participants in this study were 39 patients plus 39 caregivers. A quantitative analysis revealed a significant improvement in patient's and caregiver's psychosocial factors from the pre-play period to 10 min play time, and a significant interaction effect between the psychological state and the impact of HabitApp. The children with highest levels of depression obtained most benefit from the positive effects. A qualitative analysis brought out four themes: physical state, emotional state, social interaction, and hospital routines. Using a user experience questionnaire the patients and caregiver reported high satisfaction rates with the app use. These results confirm that it is important to continue studying this type of technology in order to develop better interventions to be included in an integral approach to this pathology considering caregivers into pediatric oncology patients' play therapy.Entities:
Keywords: cancer; caregiver; games; intervention; pediatric; psychosocial
Year: 2020 PMID: 32116953 PMCID: PMC7020696 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00157
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Related works on technological game interventions in childhood cancer.
| Author(s) | Age range | Pathology or procedure | Carer interaction | Activity | Purpose | Object of study |
| 8–16 | Cancer | Yes | Co-located | Education | User experience | |
| 11–15 | Cancer: bone marrow transplant | No | Online | Socialization | User experience | |
| 10–17 | Cancer: leukemia or lymphoma | Yes | Co-located | Education | Control feeling | |
| 4–11 | Cancer: leukemia | No | Individual | Education | User experience and control feeling | |
| ≥18 | Cancer | Yes | Online | Socialization | Social adjustment and life satisfaction. | |
| 12–18 | Cancer and others | No | Online | Socialization | Psycho-emotional adjustment | |
| n/a | Cancer | No | Online | Distraction and socialization | User experience | |
| 7–19 | Cancer | No | Online | Education | User experience | |
| 13–23 | Cancer | No | Individual | Motivation | Self-care and treatment adherence | |
| 8–16 | Cancer | No | Co-located | Motivation | Anxiety and depression | |
| 5–18 | Cancer: venepuncture | No | Individual | Distraction | Pain and distress | |
| 5–14 | Cancer | Yes | Co-located | Distraction and socialization | User experience | |
| 10–14 | Cancer | No | Individual | Motivation | Anxiety and depression | |
| 5–18 | Cancer: venepuncture | No | Individual | Distraction | Pain, fear and distress | |
| Teenagers | Cancer | No | Online | Communication | Positive affect |
FIGURE 1Instance of HabitApp showing a list of streams. Copyright © 2019, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Dr. J. Jaén.
FIGURE 2Instance of HabitApp with all control buttons. On the left, zoom-in/zoom-out; direction pointers on the right. Copyright © 2019, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Dr. J. Jaén.
FIGURE 3Examples of captured images and a personal album. Copyright © 2019, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Dr. J. Jaén.
FIGURE 4Example of query related to a captured image. Copyright © 2019, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Dr. J. Jaén.
ANOVA of psychosocial factors and observation times in patient’s ratings.
| Pre playing | 10′ playing | 20′ playing | Time | Result | ||||||
| η2 | 95% Confidence interval | |||||||||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||||||
| Affection | 1.03 (0.74) | 2.15 (0.75) | 2.21 (0.66) | 2 | 59.8 | 0.000∗ | 0.61 | 1.61 | 1.98 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Physical activity | 2.08 (0.96) | 2.56 (0.55) | 2.69 (0.52) | 1.32 | 13.5 | 0.000∗ | 0.26 | 2.27 | 2.62 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Social interaction | 1.44 (0.79) | 2.23 (0.87) | 2.05 (1.07) | 1.70 | 12.7 | 0.000∗ | 0.25 | 1.68 | 2.13 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Interest | 1.49 (0.60) | 2.15 (0.75) | 2.10 (0.88) | 1.71 | 12.5 | 0.000∗ | 0.25 | 1.74 | 2.10 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Satisfaction | 1.26 (0.75) | 1.92 (1.01) | 1.92 (0.96) | 2 | 16.6 | 0.000∗ | 0.30 | 1.45 | 1.95 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Somatic complaints | 2.10 (1.20) | 2.28 (1.10) | 2.38 (1.10) | 2 | 2.5 | 0.091 | 0.06 | 1.91 | 2.61 | |
| Nervousness | 2.64 (0.84) | 2.64 (0.74) | 2.85 (0.43) | 1.84 | 1.8 | 0.181 | 0.04 | 2.54 | 2.88 | |
ANOVA of psychosocial factors and observation times in caregiver’s ratings.
| Pre playing | 10′ playing | 20′ playing | Time | Result | ||||||
| η2 | 95% Confidence interval | |||||||||
| Lower bound | Lower bound | |||||||||
| Affection | 1.39 (0.79) | 2.03 (0.47) | 2.03 (0.59) | 1.45 | 14 | 0.000∗ | 0.30 | 1.67 | 1.97 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Proximity | 1.52 (0.57) | 2.06 (0.50) | 2.00 (0.61) | 2 | 11 | 0.000∗ | 0.26 | 1.73 | 1.99 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Interest | 1.39 (0.61) | 2.06 (0.56) | 1.82 (0.95) | 1.63 | 11 | 0.000∗ | 0.26 | 1.56 | 1.95 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Satisfaction | 1.42 (0.87) | 2.18 (0.68) | 2.06 (0.83) | 1.77 | 12 | 0.000∗ | 0.28 | 1.68 | 2.09 | T1 < T2⋅T3 |
| Nervousness | 2.67 (0.74) | 2.76 (0.66) | 2.73 (0.72) | 2 | 0.27 | 0.696 | 0.01 | 2.51 | 2.92 | |
| Emotional reactions | 0.82 (1.10) | 1.09 (1.30) | 0.79 (1.12) | 1.67 | 1.9 | 0.164 | 0.06 | 0.53 | 1.26 | |
ANOVA 2 × 2 patient’s affection rating interaction with the patient’s psychological condition.
| Pre playing | 10′ playing | 20′ playing | Patient affection * Patient’s | |||||||
| η2 | 95% Confidence interval | |||||||||
| Lower bound | Lower bound | |||||||||
| Sadness | Low | 1.29 (0.75) | 2.14 (0.69) | 2.29 (0.76) | 2 | 10.2 | 0.001∗ | 0.48 | 1.25 | 1.99 |
| High | 0.17 (0.11) | 1.80 (0.40) | 2.00 (0.63) | |||||||
| Depression | Low | 1.13 (0.83) | 2.13 (0.64) | 2.25 (0.71) | 2 | 4.2 | 0.028∗ | 0.28 | 1.19 | 1.97 |
| High | 0.20 (0.45) | 1.80 (0.45) | 2.00 (0.71) | |||||||
| Caregiver | Low | 0.85 (0.69) | 2.31 (0.63) | 2.15 (0.55) | 2 | 3.8 | 0.029∗ | 0.13 | 1.61 | 2.06 |
| Complaints | High | 1.21 (0.81) | 2.00 (0.88) | 2.43 (0.65) | ||||||
FIGURE 5Patient’s affection rating interaction with the patient’s psychological condition. (A) Patient’s affection and patient’s sadness, (B) Patient’s affection and patient’s depression, (C) Patient’s affection and patient’s and caregiver’s complaints.
ANOVA 2 × 2 patient’s satisfaction rating interaction with the caregiver’s psychological condition.
| Pre playing | 10′ playing | 20′ playing | Patient satisfaction * caregiver’s | |||||||
| η2 | 95% Confidence interval | |||||||||
| Lower bound | Lower bound | |||||||||
| Caregiver happiness | Low | 1.16 (0.76) | 2.00 (0.88) | 2.11 (0.87) | 2 | 3.19 | 0.049∗ | 0.106 | 1.41 | 2.08 |
| High | 1.60 (0.84) | 1.80 (1.30) | 1.80 (1.20) | |||||||
| Caregiver wellbeing | Low | 1.08 (0.76) | 2.23 (0.92) | 2.31 (0.95) | 2 | 6.53 | 0.003∗ | 0.201 | 1.50 | 2.11 |
| High | 1.53 (0.83) | 1.80 (1.00) | 1.87 (0.91) | |||||||
FIGURE 6Patient’s satisfaction interaction with the caregiver’s psychological condition. (A) Patient’s satisfaction and caregiver’s happiness, (B) Patient’s satisfaction and caregiver’s wellbeing.
FIGURE 7Thematic analysis: significant event of HabitApp experience.
Significant event categories and cases.
| Thematic analysis | Real case report examples |
| “Superman, 7 years old, was very ill and has neurological problems that prevent him from moving and speaking normally. HabitApp managed to motivate him to take pictures by working on the fine mobility of his fingers and to try to speak during the session, imitating animal sounds. His doctor and mom were very surprised to see HabitApp encouraging and activating him” | |
| “Wonder-woman, 6 years old, was feverish and didn’t want to do anything else over several days. Hospital teachers had tried to encourage her through activities but she did not want to do anything. When she discovered HabitApp she asked to have more sessions, she was very interested and smiling and taking many pictures. In addition, after the session she wished to go to the hospital school. Teachers and nurses were surprised” | |
| “Hulk, 7 years old, used his personal tablet device extensively when he was hospitalized, which alarmed his mother because he was not interested in any other activity and did not have proper communication with anyone. She believed he was addicted to it. When he discovered HabitApp, he stopped using his tablet immediately and began to use the tool, interacting with his mother and constantly talking to her” | |
| “Lara-croft, 9 years old, was very weak and very affected by the aggressive treatment, had extreme weight loss and developed an aversion to food. Using HabitApp relaxed her and simultaneously helped her to start eating. Doctors reported a significant change in her medical history regarding food” | |
FIGURE 8Patient’s HabitApp User Experience. Rating score: 1 = nothing, 2 = little, 3 = something, 4 = quite a lot, 5 = very much.
FIGURE 9Caregiver’s HabitApp User Experience. Rating score: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.