Evaluating the Feasibility and Acceptability of Bright IDEAS Problem-Solving Skills Training Among Uganda Professionals Caring for Children with Cancer: A Single-Arm Pilot Study.
This single-arm Ugandan pilot found that pediatric oncology and psychosocial professionals rated Bright IDEAS training as feasible and usable, while identifying institutional support, time, and resource barriers to implementation.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
This single-arm Ugandan pilot found that pediatric oncology and psychosocial professionals rated Bright IDEAS training as feasible and usable, while identifying institutional support, time, and resource barriers to implementation.
Research significance
The study provides evidence of favorable professional perceptions after training, not evidence of patient or caregiver benefit; it supports the hypothesis that a contextually refined Bright IDEAS program could improve caregiver problem-solving, coping, communication, and engagement in Ugandan pediatric oncology, which requires controlled testing with caregiver and clinical outcomes.
Source abstract
Bright IDEAS is a problem-solving skills intervention designed to aid caregivers of children with cancer. While this paradigm has been well-studied in high-income settings, the feasibility and utility of this intervention in low-resource settings has been largely unexplored. This pilot study examined whether Bright IDEAS was perceived as workable, usable, and useful by professionals in Uganda caring for patients and caregivers within pediatric oncology settings. A single-arm pilot feasibility study design was utilized in this study. Participants included 24 Ugandan health and psychosocial professionals trained in the Bright IDEAS model. Quantitative data was obtained from 14 participants, using a post-training survey of usability, feasibility, comfort, practicality, and perceived utility on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Poor to 5 = Excellent). Open-ended items assessed barriers, enablers, and experiences of implementation. Descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis were conducted. Respondents rated both overall feasibility and usability highly (M = 4.3, SD = 0.6). They reported comfort in teaching caregivers about the intervention (M = 4.1) and reported Bright IDEAS strategies were easy for caregivers to understand (M = 4.4). The major qualitative themes were perceived empowerment of caregivers, strengthened problem-solving skills, and enhanced therapeutic engagement. Relevant challenges included lack of support from institutions, time constraints, and inadequate resources. Bright IDEAS was widely believed to be valuable for Ugandan professionals and the study demonstrated strong perceived impact on caregiver coping and communication. These results support additional contextual refinement and robust testing of Bright IDEAS in Ugandan oncology and psychosocial care contexts.