IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A scoping review to map the concept, content, and outcome of wilderness programs for childhood cancer survivors

Author

Listed:
  • Mats Jong
  • E Anne Lown
  • Winnie Schats
  • Michelle L Mills
  • Heather R Otto
  • Leiv E Gabrielsen
  • Miek C Jong

Abstract

Objectives: Systematic mapping of the concept, content, and outcome of wilderness programs for childhood cancer survivors. Design: Scoping review. Search strategy: Searches were performed in 13 databases and the grey literature. Included studies describe participation of childhood cancer survivors in wilderness programs where the role of nature had a contextual and therapeutic premise. At least two authors independently performed screening, data extraction and analysis. Results: Database searches yielded 1848 articles, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of programs (73%) employed adventure therapy. Five activity categories were identified as components of wilderness programs: challenge/risk, free time/leisure, experiential learning, physical activity and psychotherapeutic activities. A majority of the participating childhood cancer survivors were female, white, aged 8–40 years, with a wide range of cancer diagnoses. Reported outcomes included increased social involvement, self-esteem, self-confidence, self-efficacy, social support, and physical activity. Key gaps identified included the absence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), lack of studies on long-term effects, lack of information on the multicultural aspects of programs, and missing information on engagement in nature activities after the program ended. Conclusions: This scoping review guides childhood cancer survivors, their families, practitioners, clinicians and researchers in the development and optimization of wilderness programs for childhood cancer survivors. In addition, it informs the utilization of these programs, and identifies gaps in the evidence base of wilderness programs. It is recommended that future study reporting on wilderness programs include more detail and explicitly address the role of nature in the program. Performing RCTs on wilderness programs is challenging, as they occur in real-life contexts in which participants cannot be blinded. Creative solutions in the design of pragmatic trials and mixed method studies are thus needed for further investigation of the effectiveness and safety of wilderness programs in childhood cancer survivors.

Suggested Citation

  • Mats Jong & E Anne Lown & Winnie Schats & Michelle L Mills & Heather R Otto & Leiv E Gabrielsen & Miek C Jong, 2021. "A scoping review to map the concept, content, and outcome of wilderness programs for childhood cancer survivors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243908
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243908
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243908&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243908?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gillard, Ann & Watts, Clifton E., 2013. "Program features and developmental experiences at a camp for youth with cancer," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 890-898.
    2. Harper, Nevin J., 2017. "Wilderness therapy, therapeutic camping and adventure education in child and youth care literature: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-79.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nagl-Cupal, Martin & Prajo, Natasa, 2019. "It is something special: How children and their parents experience a camp for young people who care for a parent with a severe physical illness," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Gagnon, Ryan J. & Garst, Barry A. & Townsend, Jasmine A., 2019. "Tough decisions in medical specialty camps: Relationships between camp dosage, outcomes, and camper attendance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 49-57.
    3. McCarthy, Lauren Pryce & Lee, Bethany R. & Schagrin, Judith & Loysen, Susan, 2020. "“Knowing that I wasn’t alone”: An evaluation of a therapeutic camp reunifying siblings in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Warner, Robert P. & Sibthorp, Jim & Wilson, Cait & Browne, Laurie P. & Barnett, Sabrica & Gillard, Ann & Sorenson, Jacob, 2021. "Similarities and differences in summer camps: A mixed methods study of lasting outcomes and program elements," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Harper, N.J. & Mott, A.J. & Obee, P., 2019. "Client perspectives on wilderness therapy as a component of adolescent residential treatment for problematic substance use and mental health issues," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Harper, Nevin J., 2017. "Wilderness therapy, therapeutic camping and adventure education in child and youth care literature: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-79.
    7. Tonje H. Stea & Miek C. Jong & Liv Fegran & Ellen Sejersted & Mats Jong & Sophia L. H. Wahlgren & Carina R. Fernee, 2022. "Mapping the Concept, Content, and Outcome of Family-Based Outdoor Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Mental Health Problems: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-22, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.