Search

Introduction: Optimal outcomes during childhood cancer treatment require effective management of toxicities, often called supportive care. A lack of agreement on what comprises supportive care limits the development and provision of comprehensive guidance (for this work, we have defined supportive care as any disease- or treatment-related condition experienced by children with cancer, excluding psychosocial conditions, palliative care, survivorship, or procedural topics). To address this gap, we conducted a consensus-building exercise among global experts to define and prioritize topics for supportive care., Methods: Two rounds of brainstorming and prioritization exercises were conducted. A multidisciplinary panel nominated by professional societies and cooperative groups was formed to ensure geographic and resource representation using snowball sampling. An internal expert panel generated an initial list of supportive care topics. In round one, the multidisciplinary panel reviewed the initial list and recommended additional topics, followed by prioritization in round two using a seven-point Likert scale. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics., Results: The multidisciplinary panel consisted of 57 members representing 32 countries. The initial list included 46 topics; 161 additional topics were suggested. After removing duplicates and out-of-scope additions, the final list contained 62 topics. Febrile neutropenia, sepsis, bloodstream infections, and pain were ranked highest priority. Mortality, morbidity, and frequency of the event were identified as the most important factors influencing prioritization., Conclusion: Through a multidisciplinary and globally representative process, we identified core supportive care topics and factors influencing their prioritization for childhood cancer. Outputs from this work will inform efforts to generate resource-adapted recommendations for a global audience. This supports ongoing WHO CureAll work to develop a health systems-level policy brief of supportive care requirements in the management of children with cancer., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Pediatric oncology patients have increased risk for critical illness; outcomes are well described in high-income countries (HICs); however, data is limited for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Global Health databases for articles in 6 languages describing mortality in children with cancer admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in LMICs. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility, data quality, and extracted data. We pooled ICU mortality estimates using random effect models., Results: Of 3641 studies identified, 22 studies were included, covering 4803 ICU admissions. Overall pooled mortality was 30.3 % [95 % Confidence-interval (CI) 21.7-40.6 %]. Mechanical ventilation [odds ratio (OR) 12.2, 95 %CI:6.2-24.0, p-value<0.001] and vasoactive infusions [OR 6.3 95 %CI:3.3-11.9, p-value<0.001] were associated with ICU mortality., Conclusions: ICU mortality among pediatric oncology patients in LMICs is similar to that in HICs, however, this review likely underestimates true mortality due to underrepresentation of studies from low-income countries., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose, (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research expands knowledge and improves outcomes. Research is needed in all settings, but most often occurs in high-income countries (HIC) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Publication in scientific peer-reviewed journals and authorship position are important for academic/clinical advancement. We explored the current state of global authorship and data source distribution for publications in the Pediatric Blood and Cancer (PBC) journal., Procedure: LMIC-affiliated author inclusion and position in selected article categories of the PBC (2011-2021) were recorded. Articles with at least one LMIC-affiliated author (first-listed affiliation) and 5% of exclusively HIC-authored articles were verified. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed., Results: Of 4504 articles reviewed, 593 (13%) included at least one LMIC-affiliated author (517/593 [87%] as first author and 488/593 [82%]) as senior author. In a subset of articles with LMIC-sourced data, 148/675 (22%) included exclusively HIC authors. Within the LMIC-sourced data subset, 81/675 (12%) articles were mixed HIC/LMIC affiliation and 446/675 (66%) were exclusively LMIC-affiliated. The frequency of LMIC-affiliated authors as first or senior author within HIC/LMIC-affiliated collaborations was 31/81 (38%) and 9/81 (11%), respectively., Conclusion: As more than 80% of children live in LMICs and the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer is increasingly engaged across LMICs, all researchers/clinicians must justly be given an opportunity to conduct, write, publish, and be recognized for their research. PBC is uniquely poised to promote equitable publishing practices and opportunities for professional recognition by drawing on emerging best practices for equitable authorship, including potentially restructuring authorship guidelines and requirements., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: High-quality clinical care requires excellent interdisciplinary communication, especially during emergencies, and no tools exist to evaluate communication in critical care. We describe the development of a pragmatic tool focusing on interdisciplinary communication during patient deterioration (CritCom)., Methods: The preliminary CritCom tool was developed after a literature review and consultation with a multidisciplinary panel of global experts in communication, pediatric oncology, and critical care to review the domains and establish content validity iteratively. Face and linguistic validity were established through cognitive interviews, translation, and linguistic synthesis. We conducted a pilot study among an international group of clinicians to establish reliability and usability., Results: After reviewing 105 potential survey items, we identified 52 items across seven domains. These were refined through cognitive interviews with 36 clinicians from 15 countries. CritCom was piloted with 433 clinicians (58% nurses, 36% physicians, and 6% other) from 42 hospitals in 22 countries. Psychometric testing guided the refinement of the items for the final tool. CritCom comprised six domains with five items each (30 total). The final tool has excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.81-0.86), usability (93% agree or strongly agree that the tool is easy to use), and similar performance between English and Spanish tools. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the final 6-domain structure., Conclusions: CritCom is a reliable and pragmatic bilingual tool to assess the quality of interdisciplinary communication around patient deterioration for children in diverse resource levels globally. Critcom results can be used to design and evaluate interventions to improve team communication., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Rivera, Malone, Puerto-Torres, Prewitt, Counts, Wiphatphumiprates, Sakaan, Al Zebin, Arias, Bhattacharyya, Gunasekera, Johnson, Kambugu, Kaye, Mandrell, Mack, McArthur, Mendez, Morrissey, Sharara-Chami, Snaman, Sniderman, Luke, Graetz and Agulnik.)

Background: Online healthcare information is often used by pediatric oncology nurse educators in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for teaching clinical nurses as part of their initial orientation or continuing education. Access to peer-reviewed nursing journals via paid subscriptions or sub-specialty nursing textbooks in these settings is rare. This project identified and evaluated websites appropriate for pediatric oncology nurse educators in LMICs for teaching staff nurses, and for clinical staff nurses engaging in self-directed learning. Method: A strategic Google search for childhood cancer websites and an appropriate scoring tool was conducted. The Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose Test, along with a previously published scoring rubric that was further adapted by the authors for pediatric oncology were used. Pediatric content, language options, and reading levels were appraised. Results: Of 86 identified websites, 51 met the inclusion criteria for evaluation. Websites were classified as highly recommended ( n  = 36), recommended ( n  = 12), or not recommended ( n  = 3) based on scores (range 14-30; maximum possible score = 30). Half offered content in multiple languages. Most websites were 9-10th-grade reading level. Discussion: Childhood cancer information appropriate for clinical nurse orientation and self-directed learning by LMIC nurses is available on free websites. Some information (diagnosis, chemotherapy, psychosocial support) is repeated across websites, while some is lacking (pediatric cancer genetics and health equity disparities). Reading levels are higher than recommended for health literacy. The reviewed websites were rarely peer-reviewed, inconsistently updated, and generally self-regulated. However, 48 websites on childhood cancer were deemed appropriate pediatric oncology clinical nursing education resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: As implementation science in global health continues to evolve, there is a need for valid and reliable measures that consider diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. A standardized, reproducible process for multilingual measure development may improve accessibility and validity by participants in global health settings. To address this need, we propose a rigorous methodology for multilingual measurement development. We use the example of a novel measure of multi-professional team communication quality, a determinant of implementation efforts., Methods: The development and translation of this novel bilingual measure is comprised of seven steps. In this paper, we describe a measure developed in English and Spanish, however, this approach is not language specific. Participants are engaged throughout the process: first, an interprofessional panel of experts and second, through cognitive interviewing for measure refinement. The steps of measure development included: (1) literature review to identify previous measures of team communication; (2) development of an initial measure by the expert panel; (3) cognitive interviewing in a phased approach with the first language (English); (4): formal, forward-backward translation process with attention to colloquialisms and regional differences in languages; (5) cognitive interviewing repeated in the second language (Spanish); (6) language synthesis to refine both instruments and unify feedback; and (7) final review of the refined measure by the expert panel., Results: A draft measure to assess quality of multi-professional team communication was developed in Spanish and English, consisting of 52 questions in 7 domains. This measure is now ready for psychometric testing., Conclusions: This seven-step, rigorous process of multilingual measure development can be used in a variety of linguistic and resource settings. This method ensures development of valid and reliable tools to collect data from a wide range of participants, including those who have historically been excluded due to language barriers. Use of this method will increase both rigor and accessibility of measurement in implementation science and advance equity in research and practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Malone, Rivera, Puerto-Torres, Prewitt, Sakaan, Counts, Al Zebin, Arias, Bhattacharyya, Gunasekera, Johnson, Kambugu, Kaye, Mandrell, Mack, McArthur, Mendez, Morrissey, Sharara-Chami, Snaman, Sniderman, Luke, Graetz and Agulnik.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic altered healthcare systems globally, causing delays in care delivery and increased anxiety among patients and families. This study examined how hospital stakeholders and clinicians perceived the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families., Methods: This secondary analysis examined data from a qualitative study consisting of 19 focus groups conducted in 8 languages throughout 16 countries. A codebook was developed with novel codes derived inductively from transcript review. In-depth analysis focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families., Results: Eight themes describing the impact of the pandemic on patients and their families were identified and classified into three domains: contributing factors (COVID-19 Policies, Cancer Treatment Modifications, COVID-19 Symptoms, Beliefs), patient-related impacts (Quality of Care, Psychosocial impacts, Treatment Reluctance), and the central transformer (Communication). Participants described the ability of communication to transform the effect of contributing factors on patient-related impacts. The valence of impacts depended on the quality and quantity of communication among clinicians and between clinicians and patients and families., Conclusions: Communication served as the central factor impacting whether the COVID-19 pandemic positively or negatively affected children with cancer and families. These findings emphasize the key role communication plays in delivering patient-centered care and can guide future development of communication-centered interventions globally., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Historically, qualitative research has complemented quantitative biologic and epidemiologic studies to provide a more complete understanding of pandemics. The COVID-19 pandemic has generated unique and novel challenges for qualitative researchers, who have embraced creative solutions including virtual focus groups and rapid analyses to continue their work. We present our experience conducting a multilingual global qualitative study of healthcare resilience among teams of pediatric oncology professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide an in-depth description of our methodology and an analysis of factors we believe contributed to our study's success including our use of technology, engagement of a large multilingual team, global partnerships, and framework-based rapid analysis. We hope these techniques may be useful to qualitative researchers conducting studies during the current pandemic, as well as for all pediatric oncology studies including multiple languages or geographically disparate subjects., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Background: In the face of unprecedented challenges because of coronavirus disease 2019, interdisciplinary pediatric oncology teams have developed strategies to continue providing high-quality cancer care. This study explored factors contributing to health care resilience as perceived by childhood cancer providers in all resource level settings., Methods: This qualitative study consisted of 19 focus groups conducted in 16 countries in 8 languages. Seven factors have been previously defined as important for resilient health care including: 1) in situ practical experience, 2) system design, 3) exposure to diverse views on the patient's situation, 4) protocols and checklists, 5) teamwork, 6) workarounds, and 7) trade-offs. Rapid turn-around analysis focused on these factors., Results: All factors of health care resilience were relevant to groups representing all resource settings. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of teamwork and a flexible and coordinated approach to care. Participants described collaboration within and among institutions, as well as partnerships with governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations. Hierarchies were advantageous to decision-making and information dissemination. Clinicians were inspired by their patients and explained creative trade-offs and workarounds used to maintain high-quality care., Conclusions: Factors previously described as contributing to resilient health care manifested differently in each institution but were described in all resource settings. These insights can guide pediatric oncology teams worldwide as they provide cancer care during the next phases of the pandemic. Understanding these elements of resilience will also help providers respond to inevitable future stressors on health care systems., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

The COVID-19 pandemic quickly led to an abundance of publications and recommendations, despite a paucity of information on how COVID-19 affects children with cancer. This created a dire need for a trusted resource with curated information and a space for the pediatric oncology community to share experiences. The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer was developed, launched, and maintained by the International Society of Pediatric Oncology and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. The three components (Resource Library, Global Registry, and Collaboration Space) complement each other, establishing a mechanism to generate and transfer knowledge rapidly throughout the community., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

With the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer, there is renewed interest in sustainable interventions to improve childhood cancer care in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs). Practitioners in LMICs have traditionally practiced "twinning," i.e., targeted international pediatric oncology partnerships (TIPPs) between one or more institutions in a high-income country (HIC) and an LMIC, to improve care for children with cancer in the latter. The International Society of Paediatric Oncology Committee for Paediatric Oncology in Developing Countries Working Group on Twinning, Collaboration, and Support reviewed guidelines from https://cancerpointe.com and the current literature, gathered input from practitioners in LMICs, and in this article discuss the role of TIPPs in the WHO initiative., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)