An Expert Evaluation of Oncology Website Resources for Use in Pediatric Oncology Clinical Nursing Education in Low-Resource Settings.

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.

CritCom: assessment of quality of interdisciplinary communication around deterioration in pediatric oncologic patients.

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.

A new measure for multi-professional medical team communication: design and methodology for multilingual measurement development.

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.

Communication transforms the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families.

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.

Utilizing Multilingual Methods and Rapid Analysis for Global Qualitative Research During a Pandemic.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric oncology providers globally: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted pediatric oncology care globally, increasing demands on health care providers (HCPs) who adapted to continue care. This study sought to characterize the pandemic's impact on pediatric oncology HCPs worldwide. METHODS: A 60-item survey focused on changes to clinical care, resources, and effects on clinicians. A diverse subgroup of institutions was purposefully selected for focus groups that explored teamwork, communication, and changes to care delivery. RESULTS: The survey included 311 responses from 213 institutions representing 79 countries. Sixteen institutions participated in 19 multidisciplinary focus groups in 8 languages. Decreased clinical staff availability was cited by 51% of institutions as a major impact. Staffing modifications included decreased provider availability (66% of institutions), roles or responsibility changes, and transfer outside the specialty. Physical effects included frequent COVID-19 illness; 8% of respondents reported HCP deaths. Fifty percent of providers did not have the necessary personal protective equipment. HCPs also experienced psychological distress and financial concerns. Findings indicated more frequent impact on nurses than other providers. Impacts were described across all hospital resource levels, with staffing modifications more frequent in countries with higher COVID-19 incidence (P < .001) and mortality rate (P = .004). Focus groups revealed negative impacts were stabilized by increased teamwork, communication, contributions outside usual roles, policies aimed at optimizing safety, and feeling that they were contributing. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound impact on the pediatric oncology workforce, creating challenging modifications to staffing and resulting in physical, psychological, and financial distress. Despite these challenges, HCPs caring for children with cancer came together to continue to provide high-quality care.

Resilient health care in global pediatric oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Global effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric cancer care: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although mortality due to COVID-19 has been reportedly low among children with cancer, changes in health-care services due to the pandemic have affected cancer care delivery. This study aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood cancer care worldwide. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to paediatric oncology providers worldwide from June 22 to Aug 21, 2020, through the St Jude Global Alliance and International Society for Paediatric Oncology listservs and regional networks. The survey included 60 questions to assess institution characteristics, the number of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, disruptions to cancer care (eg, service closures and treatment abandonment), adaptations to care, and resources (including availability of clinical staff and personal protective equipment). Surveys were included for analysis if respondents answered at least two thirds of the items, and the responses were analysed at the institutional level. FINDINGS: Responses from 311 health-care professionals at 213 institutions in 79 countries from all WHO regions were included in the analysis. 187 (88%) of 213 centres had the capacity to test for SARS-CoV-2 and a median of two (range 0-350) infections per institutution were reported in children with cancer. 15 (7%) centres reported complete closure of paediatric haematology-oncology services (median 10 days, range 1-75 days). Overall, 2% (5 of 213) of centres were no longer evaluating new cases of suspected cancer, while 43% (90 of 208) of the remaining centers described a decrease in newly diagnosed paediatric cancer cases. 73 (34%) centres reported increased treatment abandonment (ie, failure to initiate cancer therapy or a delay in care of 4 weeks or longer). Changes to cancer care delivery included: reduced surgical care (153 [72%]), blood product shortages (127 [60%]), chemotherapy modifications (121 [57%]), and interruptions to radiotherapy (43 [28%] of 155 institutions that provided radiotherapy before the pandemic). The decreased number of new cancer diagnoses did not vary based on country income status (p=0·14). However, unavailability of chemotherapy agents (p=0·022), treatment abandonment (p<0·0001), and interruptions in radiotherapy (p<0·0001) were more frequent in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. These findings did not vary based on institutional or national numbers of COVID-19 cases. Hospitals reported using new or adapted checklists (146 [69%] of 213), processes for communication with patients and families (134 [63%]), and guidelines for essential services (119 [56%]) as a result of the pandemic. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably affected paediatric oncology services worldwide, posing substantial disruptions to cancer diagnosis and management, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. This study emphasises the urgency of an equitably distributed robust global response to support paediatric oncology care during this pandemic and future public health emergencies. FUNDING: American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer: A response for the pediatric oncology community by SIOP and St. Jude Global.

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.

The role of twinning in sustainable care for children with cancer: A TIPPing point? SIOP PODC Working Group on Twinning, Collaboration, and Support.

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.