This study examined types of and reactions to loss experienced by a sample of 162 undergraduate and graduate students in the United States amid the COVID-19 global pandemic. Results indicated students reported an average of 6.33 losses with loss of normalcy being the most prominent. The number of losses experienced was a significant predictor of loss of control and avoidance. A significant positive relationship was revealed between spirituality and positive reappraisal whereas a significant negative correlation was identified between spirituality and loss of control and avoidance. Age was also negatively associated with expressions of avoidance and loss of control. Finally, students who attended faith-based institutions reported higher levels of positive reappraisal and lower levels of loss of control. Results suggest the need for educators and mental health practitioners to assess non-death losses among college students and provide supportive interventions aimed at promoting psychosocial-spiritual coping and resilience during and following a pandemic.

Background: The Standards for the Psychosocial Care of Children with Cancer and their Families provide a framework for the delivery of psychosocial care to families experiencing pediatric cancer. Similarly, the Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model (PPPHM) guides intervention approaches by identifying three tiers of psychosocial support based on a family’s level of risk. Employing both the Standards and the PPPHM, we developed a comprehensive three-tiered approach to support the psychosocial needs of families in a pediatric oncology setting. Methods: After publication of the Standards, our institution merged existing psychosocial disciplines into one unified Psychosocial Services department. The new department worked to clearly define the role and scope of each discipline’s practice to ensure the psychosocial needs of patients and families were being comprehensively met. Interprofessional workgroups were established to evaluate and enhance the psychosocial services offered to patients, siblings, and caregivers using a three-tiered model of support. Membership included representation from patients and parent/caregiver advisors to ensure their perspectives were included in program development. Results: Over ten new programs have been developed to enhance the support of families facing pediatric cancer. At the Universal tier, new programs available to all families include caregiver and sibling support groups, a caregiver podcast, and a relationship health toolkit and workshop. At the Targeted tier, psychosocial interventions and parent mentor supports were implemented. At the Clinical/Intervention tier, a partnership was developed with an external tele-mental health company to provide mental health services to caregivers with significant needs or preexisting mental health disorders. Conclusions: Given the complex needs of families facing pediatric cancer, use of an interdisciplinary approach is paramount to successful support throughout the treatment trajectory. By leveraging the expertise and strengths of diverse disciplines with the perspectives of patients and families, new psychosocial programs can comprehensively address the unique challenges of patients and families impacted by illness.

Background: Parents of children with cancer often experience significant stressors that can heighten distress and impact overall well-being. Despite recommendations supporting distress screening for adult and pediatric patients with cancer, systematic assessment of parent or caregiver distress in pediatric oncology settings remains limited. This Quality Improvement initiative aimed to implement routine distress screening for adult caregivers of pediatric patients with brain and solid tumors at our institution. Methods: Using the 18-item CancerSupportSource™-Caregiver (CSS-CG) instrument, our social work team invited eligible caregivers to complete monthly electronic distress screeners while their child was receiving treatment. Automated reports with tailored psychoeducational resources were sent to caregivers upon completion, and social workers received alerts when participants scored at-risk for anxiety, depression, or financial strain. The feasibility of the CSS-CG implementation was assessed via caregiver enrollment and completion rates, and clinician acceptability was evaluated through a post-implementation survey. Results: Of 122 eligible patients, 64 of their caregivers enrolled in the CSS-CG screening platform (52.45%), and 44 (36.06%) completed at least one screener. Of the 44 caregivers who completed the CSS-CG assessment, 59.09% (n = 26) screened positive at least once for risk of anxiety, 54.54% (n = 24) for risk of financial strain, and 59.09% (n = 26) for risk of depression. Among participating social workers, 83% reported that the screener improved their clinical practice, making their sessions more focused and helpful. They also noted that it improved their ability to identify a caregiver’s overall needs. Conclusions: Implementing caregiver distress screening positively impacted social work practice at our institution. Despite variable caregiver enrollment and a few implementation challenges, the findings support the importance and potential benefit of screening for caregiver distress in a pediatric oncology setting.