Maria Kroupina1
Quannah Parker-McGowan
Madeline Kotz
Arif Somani- 1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Clinical Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
- 2Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States
Here we propose that PICU hospitalization accentuates extreme early social-emotional adversity and compounds hospital-associated trauma that may result in neurodevelopmental and mental health challenges for pediatric cancer survivors. We focus specifically on the first three years of life, when the incidence of childhood cancer is the highest and the brain is in its most vulnerable period of development. A comprehensive understanding of risks associated with PICU hospitalization is necessary for informing improvements to the inpatient environment and proposing new models for administering mental health care, evidence-based intervention, and long-term follow-up.
Defining the problem
Each year, approximately 15,000 children and adolescents in the United States are diagnosed with cancer. From 2003-2019, the incidence was highest among infants (264.6/1,000,000) and young children (up to age 5: 230.7/1,000,000), with this group making up almost one third of childhood cancer diagnoses (1). Fortunately, pediatric cancer survival in the United States has increased greatly since the 1970s, and continues to improve, from 82% survival in 2001–2007 to 85.1% in 2008-2015 (2). Accordingly, the number of pediatric cancer survivors is growing, estimated at 483,039 individuals in the United States in 2018 (1). This has resulted in increased focus on long-term outcomes and late effects of treatment in pediatric cancer survivors, as well as efforts to improve longitudinal follow-up and care.
Limited literature exists to describe neurodevelopmental outcomes in patients receiving cancer diagnosis and treatment in early childhood, but in a study of 29 children under 3 years, 82.6% were found to have below average cognitive functioning and 69.3% had below average adaptive functioning (3). In samples that encompass survivors across age groups, neurodevelopmental challenges are present in one third of pediatric cancer survivors, most commonly in the areas of visual processing, visual-motor functioning, attention, and executive functioning (4, 5). For mental health outcomes, there is similarly limited data describing the early childhood population, but psychosocial late effects, primarily post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression; have been recognized in pediatric cancer survivors more broadly, particularly among those with additional risk factors, including more intensive treatment and poor family functioning (6).
Much of the existing literature evaluating these outcomes in pediatric cancer survivors attributes neurodevelopmental and mental health consequences to the impact of chemotherapy and other treatments on the developing brain (4, 5). More recently, it has been argued that pediatric cancer treatment be categorized as an adverse childhood experience; thereby, positing a direct relationship between treatment-related adversity and neurodevelopmental and mental health challenges in later life (7). An experience that encompasses much of this treatment-related adversity is hospitalization, which pediatric cancer patients often experience on a prolonged and repeated basis over their treatment course. Importantly, up to 38% require advanced care in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) (8, 9). Outcomes in PICU patients have been conceptualized by the Integrative Trajectory Model of Pediatric Medical Traumatic Stress and the PICS-p (Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in Pediatrics) framework (10–13). Both models conceptualize post-discharge effects on cognitive function and mental and social health imposed not only on the patient, but also parents and siblings. Across various illnesses, the incidence of clinical or subclinical post-medical traumatic stress is approximately 30% in both patients and parents; and may remain chronic and persistent (10). For instance, delirium in PICU patients is associated with post-discharge decline in health related quality of life, sleep disturbance and parental anxiety (14–16). In a prospective, sibling-matched study, PICU patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation scored lower in IQ, visuospatial skills, non-verbal memory and fine motor control than their siblings (17). Given the very nature of critical and life saving care mandated by a tenuous clinical condition, PICU admission represents additional complexity and morbidity in the care of these young patients.
Here we propose that PICU hospitalization accentuates extreme early social-emotional adversity and compounds hospital-associated trauma that may result in neurodevelopmental and mental health challenges for pediatric cancer survivors. We focus specifically on the first three years of life, when the incidence of childhood cancer is the highest and the brain is in its most vulnerable period of development. A comprehensive understanding of risks associated with PICU hospitalization is necessary for informing improvements to the inpatient environment and proposing new models for administering mental health care, evidence-based intervention, and long-term follow-up.
PICU hospitalization as a form of early social-emotional adversity
Hospitalization, especially in the PICU, often necessitates medical and surgical procedures, as well as ongoing, life-preserving modalities that in and of themselves introduce pain, discomfort, delirium and added morbidities (14–17). Further, primary caregivers are not always able to remain in the hospital with their child at all times. Other children in the home, employment constraints, transportation limitations, and financial burdens are examples of common obstacles that prevent caregivers from remaining at the bedside. Language, cultural, and even necessary medical devices and technology pose other barriers to the child-caregiver dyad, even when caregivers can be at the bedside. As such, these young patients are essentially alone for extended periods of time, with only nurses, physicians, and related service providers as their main sources of support (18, 19).
Complex medical illness and associated hospitalization (including the PICU admission) introduces stress to the patient; but, they also compound the risk of disrupting and impeding the child-parent relationship, which is fundamental to stress regulation in a child – the consequences of which may be particularly devastating for young children during this sensitive period of brain development (19, 20). The effects of PICU hospitalization on child-caregiver relationships lie on a spectrum. At the more severe end, these disruptions can include emotional isolation, impaired bonding, and even neglect. In such cases, the prolonged or intense stress may reach levels that constitute toxic stress, posing risks to the child’s long-term mental health and neurodevelopment. Toxic stress occurs when a young child has experiences which “produce frequent, strong, and/or prolonged activations of the body’s stress response systems in the absence of the protection of a supportive adult relationship”.21(p32) Without intervention and caregiver support, toxic stress can negatively impact a child’s ability to regulate stress hormones, such as cortisol, as well as cause functional and structural changes to brain structures involved in stress regulation, including the amygdala and hippocampus (22, 23). Moreover, toxic stress puts a child’s health at risk and is linked to long-term health conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, and a weakened immune system (22). Stressors to the child also heighten caregiver anxiety and contribute to a deleterious feedback cycle in the child-caregiver dyad and family unit (24, 25).
A further consequence of hospitalization in the PICU for young pediatric cancer patients is the potential impediment on a child’s ability to explore and learn from their environment, which is crucial for helping children learn skills such as decision making (26). In addition to environmental obstacles (e.g. medical devices, monitors, and therapeutics) that negatively impact exploration, compromised early child-caregiver relationships can also fundamentally alter how a child learns and adapts. Specifically, young children will still approach a novel object, even in the face of aversive stimuli, if their caregivers are present (23, 27). Complex, chronic and repeated hospitalizations can disrupt typical developmental processes in young children, in part because of the unpredictable environment and stressors alluded to above (19). As an example of which, we presented a case study of a 21-month-old male diagnosed with neuroblastoma. Over the course of a nine-month hospitalization, this patient suffered expressive language regression and loss of effective communication skills (19).
It has been suggested that early brain plasticity cuts both ways. The developing brain is highly sensitive to both positive and negative experiences; thus, making early childhood a particularly vulnerable period of development (28–30). Research on the first 1000 days (from conception to age 2) references this concept and further adds that maternal mental health impacts parenting practices as well as fetal and infant growth and bonding (31). Indeed, it has been postulated that the fetal milieu and post natal care plays an underlying role in the development of chronic non-communicable diseases of adulthood such as cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity (32, 33). This is further expanded upon in the next 1000 days (age 2 to 5) where holistic development may mitigate lost opportunities and optimize overall outcomes (34). In particular, the second 1000 days expands on cognitive, language and social emotional skills, including caregiver–child attachment security, each of which influence downstream play-based learning, acquisition of early literacy and numeracy skills, and school readiness; and ultimately, executive functioning (35). Investment in early childhood care and education may attenuate adolescent risk taking behavior, truancy, crime, welfare dependency, and improve labor outcomes. The potential return of investment is 8–19 times larger than the cost of implementing these programs across low and middle income countries (36).
Adverse conditions in early life, such as pediatric cancer and PICU hospitalization, put a child’s neurodevelopment and mental health at risk. On the other hand, early brain plasticity offers a unique window of opportunity for intervention. Because the brain is so adaptable during early childhood, timely early intervention can significantly improve outcomes and even reverse some of the negative impacts of early adversity. While it is likely that hospitalization in the PICU for young pediatric cancer patients can have negative impacts on their mental health and development, caregiver-child relationships can act as a “buffer” to toxic stress for medically complex children (21). Close emotional bonds with caregivers are an important protective factor for children (37, 38). Early intervention targeting child-caregiver relationships and optimizing co-regulation of stress have been found to have a long-lasting, positive impact on multiple domains, including stress regulation, emotional regulation, and more optimal neurodevelopmental functioning, such as executive functioning (39–42). In addition, child-caregiver dyadic interventions have been found to improve secure attachment and verbal abilities, as well as improve parent sensitivity (Figure 1) (43–45).
Figure 1. Early, targeted interventions accentuate the role of the parent-child relationship buffer, attenuating the impact of social-emotional adversity on downstream neurodeveloment and mental health outcomes.
Future directions
Given the extremely sensitive period of development and the added complexity that hospitalization can bring to pediatric cancer patients requiring PICU admission, the approach to assessment and intervention must be systematic and evidence-based in order to ensure optimal neurodevelopmental and mental health outcomes. These approaches must begin at the time of the child’s hospitalization and extend beyond discharge to support optimal developmental, cognitive, emotional, and psychosocial outcomes. A collaborative, team-based approach to assessment and intervention, including input from pediatric psychologists, inpatient social workers, physicians, and child life specialists, would facilitate such care delivery. In this collaborative and individually tailored approach, assessing the mental health needs of the child and their family, and soliciting their engagement, is crucial. This specifically includes interviewing and observing caregivers to better understand current stressors, family dynamics, and dyadic interactions between the pediatric patient and their caregivers (19).
Once the care team comprehensively understands the mental health needs of the pediatric patient and their family, appropriate intervention can be delivered. There are several evidence-based, trauma-informed relational interventions that are appropriate depending on the specific needs of the patient and their family. Table 1 summarizes these approaches. These interventions can potentially be delivered during the child’s hospital stay and via telehealth post-discharge, which is an added benefit for young children who may be immunocompromised, live in rural areas, or face barriers to in-person follow-up (38, 46). Delivering early intervention via telehealth may also simplify logistics in care delivery and attenuate both caregiver and child stress. Moreover, equitable delivery of care that is proportionately targeted to needs would be in keeping with principles of social justice and is a cost-effective investment (31, 36).
Table 1. Evidence-based trauma informed relational interventions overview.
Conclusion
There is a paucity of literature related to the mental health needs of early childhood oncology patients in whom critical care or prolonged hospitalization has been required. It is clear that PICU hospitalization has the potential to create an environment that disrupts normative developmental processes, primarily by interfering with important caregiver-child relationships. This puts children at risk for mental health disorders, even at an early age, including neurodevelopmental disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and mood disorders (19). A systematic, collaborative approach to assessment is imperative in order to understand the unique needs of each patient and their family and provide the appropriate evidence-based intervention. While early brain development makes young children particularly vulnerable to the impact of stress, it may also represent an opportunity for neuro-adaptability and improved downstream resilience with early recognition and targeted, supportive intervention.
Author contributions
MKr: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. QP-M: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MKo: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AS: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
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.
References
1. Siegel DA, King JB, Lupo PJ, Durbin EB, Tai E, Mills K, et al. Counts, incidence rates, and trends of pediatric cancer in the United States, 2003-2019. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2023) 115:1337–54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad115
2. Siegel DA, Richardson LC, Henley SJ, Wilson RJ, Dowling NF, Weir HK, et al. Pediatric cancer mortality and survival in the United States, 2001-2016. Cancer. (2020) 126:4379–89. doi: 10.1002/cncr.33080
3. Kenney AE, Harman JL, Molnar AE, Jurbergs N, and Willard VW. Early cognitive and adaptive functioning of clinically referred infants and toddlers with cancer. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. (2020) 27:41–7. doi: 10.1007/s10880-019-09619-1
4. Anderson FS and Kunin-Batson AS. Neurocognitive late effects of chemotherapy in children: the past 10 years of research on brain structure and function. Pediatr Blood Cancer. (2009) 52:159–64. doi: 10.1002/pbc.21700
5. Castellino SM, Ullrich NJ, Whelen MJ, and Lange BJ. Developing interventions for cancer-related cognitive dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2014) 106:dju186. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju186
6. Bitsko MJ, Cohen D, Dillon R, Harvey J, Krull K, and Klosky JL. Psychosocial late effects in pediatric cancer survivors: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. (2016) 63:337–43. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25773
7. Marusak HA, Iadipaolo AS, Harper FW, Elrahal F, Taub JW, Goldberg E, et al. Neurodevelopmental consequences of pediatric cancer and its treatment: applying an early adversity framework to understanding cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes. Neuropsychol Rev. (2018) 28:123–75. doi: 10.1007/s11065-017-9365-1
8. Leahy AB, Elgarten CW, Li Y, Huang YV, Fisher BT, Delp D, et al. Evaluation of hospital admission patterns in children receiving treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: what does a typical leukemia experience look like? Blood. (2018) 132:4763. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-99-119970
9. Zinter MS, DuBois SG, Spicer A, Matthay K, and Sapru A. Pediatric cancer type predicts infection rate, need for critical care intervention, and mortality in the pediatric intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. (2014) 40:1536–44. doi: 10.1007/s00134-014-3389-2
10. Price J, Kassam-Adams N, Alderfer MA, Christofferson J, and Kazak AE. Systematic review: a reevaluation and update of the Integrative (Trajectory) Model of Pediatric Medical Traumatic Stress. J Pediatr Psychol. (2016) 41:86–97. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsv074
11. Manning JC, Pinto NP, Rennick JE, Colville G, and Curley MAQ. Conceptualizing post intensive care syndrome in children–the PICS-p framework. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2018) 19:298–300. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001476
12. Brown KL, Agrawal S, Kirschen MP, Traube C, Topjian A, Pressler R, et al. The brain in pediatric critical care: unique aspects of assessment, monitoring, investigations, and follow-up. Intensive Care Med. (2022) 48:535–47. doi: 10.1007/s00134-022-06683-4
13. Schembari G, Santonocito C, Messina S, Caruso A, Cardia L, Rubulotta F, et al. Post-intensive care syndrome as a burden for patients and their caregivers: a narrative review. J Clin Med. (2024) 13:5881. doi: 10.3390/jcm13195881
14. Dervan LA, Killien EY, Smith MB, and Watson RS. Health-related quality of life following delirium in the PICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2022) 23:118–28. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000002813
15. Thibault C, Du Pont-Thibodeau G, MacDonald S, Jutras C, Metras M, Harrington K, et al. Two months outcomes following delirium in the pediatric intensive care unit. Eur J Pediatr. (2024) 183:2693–702. doi: 10.1007/s00431-024-05491-w
16. Silver G, Doyle H, Hegel E, Kaur S, Mauer EA, Gerber LM, et al. Association between pediatric delirium and quality of life after discharge. Crit Care Med. (2020) 48:1829–34. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004661
17. Watson RS, Beers SR, Asaro LA, Burns C, Koh MJ, Perry MA, et al. Association of acute respiratory failure in early childhood with long-term neurocognitive outcomes. JAMA. (2022) 327:836–45. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1480
18. Dahl CM, Kroupina M, Said SM, and Somani A. Case report: traumatic stress and developmental regression: an unintended consequence of complex cardiac care. Front Pediatr. (2021) 9:790066. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.790066
19. Dahl C, Kroupina M, Lone DW, Greengard E, and Somani A. Regression in early childhood development: an unintended outcome of prolonged hospitalization? J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. (2022) 44:e795–8. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000002411
20. Côté SM, Boivin M, Liu X, Nagin DS, Zoccolillo M, and Tremblay RE. Depression and anxiety symptoms: onset, developmental course and risk factors during early childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2009) 50:1201–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02099.x
21. Kroupina M and Elison K. The pediatric Birth to Three Clinic and Early Childhood Mental Health Program: meeting the needs of complex pediatric patients. Zero to Three. (2019), 31–5.
22. Shonkoff J and Garner AS. The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. (2012) 129:e232–46. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2663
23. Tottenham N, Shapiro M, Flannery J, Caldera C, and Sullivan RM. Parental presence switches avoidance to attraction learning in children. Nat Hum Behav. (2019) 3:1070–7. doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0656-9
24. Nelson LP and Gold JI. Posttraumatic stress disorder in children and their parents following admission to the pediatric intensive care unit: a review. Pediatr Crit Care Med. (2012) 13:338–47. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182196a8f
25. Colville G and Pierce C. Patterns of post-traumatic stress symptoms in families after paediatric intensive care. Intensive Care Med. (2012) 38:1523–31. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2612-2
26. Xu Y, Harms MB, Green CS, Wilson RC, and Pollak SD. Childhood unpredictability and the development of exploration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2023) 120:e2303869120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2303869120
27. Tottenham N. Neural meaning making, prediction, and prefrontal-subcortical development following early adverse caregiving. Dev Psychopathol. (2020) 32:1563–78. doi: 10.1017/S0954579420001169
28. Kolb B and Gibb R. Brain plasticity and behaviour in the developing brain. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2011) 20:265–76.
29. Thompson RA and Nelson CA. Developmental science and the media: early brain development. Am Psychol. (2001) 56:5–15. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.56.1.5
30. Georgieff MK, Burnette KE, and Tran PV. Early life nutrition and neural plasticity. Dev Psychopathol. (2015) 27:411–23. doi: 10.1017/S0954579415000061
31. Del Bono C, Candela E, Parini L, Zama D, Pierantoni L, Bodini CF, et al. The first 1000 days: the price of inequalities in high and middle-income countries. Pediatr Res. (2025) 98:80–9. doi: 10.1038/s41390-025-03880-x
32. Subcomisión DOHaD - SAP. Origen de la Salud y Enfermedad en el Curso de la Vida” - Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría. Concepto de Developmental Origins of Health and Disease: El ambiente en los primeros mil días de vida y su asociación con las enfermedades no transmisibles [Developmental Origins of Health and Disease Concept: The environment in the first 1000 days of life and its association with noncommunicable diseases. Arch Argent Pediatr. (2020) 118:S118–29. doi: 10.5546/aap.2020.S118
33. Juan J and Yang H. Early life 1000 days: opportunities for preventing adult diseases. Chin Med J (Engl). (2021) 135:516–18. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001920
34. Aguayo VM and Britto PR. The first and next 1000 days: a continuum for child development in early life. Lancet. (2024) 404:2028–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02439-5
35. Draper CE, Yousafzai AK, McCoy DC, Cuartas J, Obradovic J, Bhopal S, et al. The next 1000 days: building on early investments for the health and development of young children. Lancet. (2024) 404:2094–116. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01389-8
36. Nores M, Vazquez C, Gustafsson-Wright E, Osborne S, Cuartas J, Lambiris MJ, et al. The cost of not investing in the next 1000 days: implications for policy and practice. Lancet. (2024) 404:2117–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01390-4
37. Gunnar MR and Donzella B. Social regulation of the cortisol levels in early human development. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2002) 27:199–220. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(01)00045-2
38. Lakatos PP, Matic T, Carson M, and Williams ME. Child-parent psychotherapy with infants hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. (2019) 26:584–96. doi: 10.1007/s10880-019-09614-6
39. Dozier M, Peloso E, Lewis E, Laurenceau JP, and Levine S. Effects of an attachment-based intervention on the cortisol production of infants and toddlers in foster care. Dev Psychopathol. (2008) 20:845–59. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000400
40. Tabachnick AR, He Y, Zajac L, Carlson EA, and Dozier M. Secure attachment in infancy predicts context-dependent emotion expression in middle childhood. Emotion. (2022) 22:258–69. doi: 10.1037/emo0000985
41. Bernard K, Hostinar CE, and Dozier M. Intervention effects on diurnal cortisol rhythms of Child Protective Services-referred infants in early childhood: preschool follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. (2015) 169:112–9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.2369
42. Valadez EA, Tottenham N, Korom M, Tabachnick AR, Pine DS, and Dozier M. A randomized controlled trial of a parenting intervention during infancy alters amygdala-prefrontal circuitry in middle childhood. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2024) 63:29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2023.06.015
43. Bernard K, Dozier M, Bick J, Lewis-Morrarty E, Lindhiem O, and Carlson E. Enhancing attachment organization among maltreated children: results of a randomized clinical trial. Child Dev. (2012) 83:623–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01712.x
44. Roben CKP, Dozier M, Caron EB, and Bernard K. Moving an evidence-based parenting program into the community. Child Dev. (2017) 88:1447–52. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12898
45. Yarger HA, Hoye JR, and Dozier M. Trajectories of change in attachment and biobehavioral catch-up among high-risk mothers: a randomized controlled trial. Infant Ment Health J. (2016) 37:525–36. doi: 10.1002/imhj.21585
46. Dahl CM, Bauer MJ, and Kroupina M. DC: 0–5 system in clinical assessment with specialty pediatric populations. Infant Ment Health J. (2023) 44:372–86. doi: 10.1002/imhj.22034
47. Liberman AF, Dimmer MH, and Gosh Ippen CM. Child-parent psychotherapy. In: Zeanah CH, editor. Handbook of infant mental health, 4th ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY (2019). p. 485–99.
48. Guild DJ, Toth SL, Handley ED, Rogosch FA, and Cicchetti D. Attachment security mediates the longitudinal association between child–parent psychotherapy and peer relations for toddlers of depressed mothers. Dev Psychopathol. (2017) 29:587–600. doi: 10.1017/S0954579417000207
49. Lindsay JA, Kauth MR, Hudson S, Martin LA, Ramsey DJ, Daily L, et al. Implementation of video telehealth to improve access to evidence-based psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. Telemed J E Health. (2015) 21:467–72. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0114
50. Clemmons NG, Coates E, and McLeod A. Understanding the benefits of child-parent psychotherapy delivered via telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children’s Health Care. (2024) 53:41–59. doi: 10.1080/02739615.2023.2179489
51. Ippen CG, Harris WW, Van Horn P, and Lieberman AF. Traumatic and stressful events in early childhood: can treatment help those at highest risk? Child Abuse Negl. (2011) 35:504–13. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.03.009
52. Dozier M, Peloso E, Lindhiem O, Gordon MK, Manni M, Sepulveda S, et al. Developing evidence-based interventions for foster children: an example of a randomized clinical trial with infants and toddlers. J Soc Issues. (2006) 62:767–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00486.x
53. Labella MH, Benito-Gomez M, Margolis ET, Zhang J, and Dozier M. Telehealth delivery of modified attachment and biobehavioral catch-up: feasibility, acceptability, and lessons learned. Attach Hum Dev. (2023) 25:240–53. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2023.2179577
54. Dozier M, Lindhiem O, Lewis E, Bick J, Bernard K, and Peloso E. Effects of a foster parent training program on young children’s attachment behaviors: preliminary evidence from a randomized clinical trial. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. (2009) 26:321–32. doi: 10.1007/s10560-009-0165-1
55. Bernard K, Dozier M, Bick J, and Gordon MK. Intervening to enhance cortisol regulation among children at risk for neglect: results of a randomized clinical trial. Dev Psychopathol. (2015) 27:829–41. doi: 10.1017/S095457941400073X
Keywords: early childhood cancer, mental health, neurodevelopment, PICU hospitalization, social-emotional adversity
Citation: Kroupina M, Parker-McGowan Q, Kotz M and Somani A (2026) PICU associated social-emotional adversity in early childhood cancer patients: consequences in neurodevelopment and mental health. Front. Oncol. 16:1627533. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1627533
Received: 12 May 2025; Accepted: 26 January 2026; Revised: 12 January 2026;
Published: 13 February 2026.
Edited by:
Dristhi Ragoonanan, Cure 4 The Kids, United StatesReviewed by:
Carlos Manuel Zapata-Martín del Campo, National Institute of Cardiology Ignacio Chavez, MexicoCopyright © 2026 Kroupina, Parker-McGowan, Kotz and Somani. 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.
*Correspondence: Arif Somani, c29tYW4wMDdAdW1uLmVkdQ==