Evaluation of an In-Hospital Recreation Room for Hospitalised Children and Their Families.

OBJECTIVE: Many children's hospitals have established 'recreation rooms' to help reduce distress among hospitalised children and families. We investigated recreation rooms in two Australian children's hospitals to determine: 1) families' first use of the room (including discovery and delays); 2) characteristics of families accessing the room; 3) parents' positive and negative associations with the room; and 4) parents' most and least valued aspects of the room. METHOD: Using a concurrent mixed methods design, parents completed questionnaires (Restorative Experiences Tool, Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory) and an optional interview. We analysed data using t-tests and multiple regressions (questionnaires) and content analysis (interviews). RESULTS: Parents (n = 123) commonly reported delays in accessing the recreation room (n = 74, 60.2%). Parents' distress was positively related to their frequency of room use (r = 0.28, p = .001). Families of hospitalised children with lower physical (r = -0.36, p < .001) and psychosocial (r = -0.31, p = .001) functioning used the room more frequently than families of children with higher functioning. Parents reported more positive than negative associations with the rooms for themselves (t(121) = 20.92, 95% CI = 4.34-5.25), their hospitalised child (t(117) = 23.91, 95% CI = 5.00-5.90), and any siblings (t(79) = 15.76, 95% CI = 4.28-5.52). Thirteen parents completed the interviews. We identified three themes: 1) respite; 2) social support and reduced isolation; and 3) need for greater accessibility (particularly for infants/toddlers). CONCLUSIONS: Respite and social support provided within the recreation rooms may be particularly important for highly distressed parents and families of children with lower psychosocial and physical functioning. Dedicated areas for different age groups may help to improve accessibility of the recreation rooms.

Re-Engage: A Novel Nurse-Led Program for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Who Are Disengaged From Cancer-Related Care.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of childhood cancer often experience treatment-related chronic health conditions. Survivorship care improves survivors' physical and mental health, yet many are disengaged from care. Innovative models of care are necessary to overcome patient-reported barriers to accessing survivorship care and to maximize survivors' health. METHODS: We piloted a novel survivorship program, called "Re-engage," a distance-delivered, nurse-led intervention aiming to engage, educate, and empower survivors not receiving any cancer-related care. Re-engage involves a nurse-led consultation delivered via telephone/online to establish survivors' medical history and needs. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 27 survivors who had not accessed survivorship care in the last 2 years participated (median age, 31 years; interquartile range [IQR], 27-39 years); of which, 82% were at high-risk for treatment-related complications. Participation in Re-engage was high (75%) and there was no attrition once survivors enrolled. At 1 month postintervention, 92% of survivors reported that Re-engage was "beneficial," which all survivors reported at 6-month follow-up. Survivors' overall satisfaction with their care increased from 52% before Re-engage to 84% at 1 month postintervention. Survivors' mean self-efficacy scores remained similar from baseline to 1 month postintervention (b = -0.33, 95% CI, -1.31 to 0.65), but increased significantly from baseline to 6-month follow-up (b = 1.64, 95% CI, 0.28-3.00). At 6-month follow-up, 73% of survivors showed an increase in health-related self-efficacy compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Re-engage is a highly acceptable and feasible intervention and promotes health-related self-efficacy, which is integral to survivors being advocates for their own health. Further empirical work is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of Re-engage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12618000194268.

eHealth tools for childhood cancer survivorship care: A qualitative analysis of survivors', parents', and general practitioners' views.

Objective: We assessed the acceptability of, and perceived benefits/barriers to, using Electronic health (eHealth) technology for childhood cancer survivorship care. Methods: We interviewed survivors, their parents, and their nominated GP. We described a hypothetical eHealth tool to manage survivorship care and asked their likely use of, and perceived benefits/concerns for, the use of the tool. Results: 31 survivors (mean age = 27.0), 29 parents (survivors' mean age = 12.6), and 51 GPs (mean years practising = 28.2) participated. Most survivors/parents (85%) and GPs (75%) indicated that they would be willing to use an eHealth tool. Survivors/parents reported that an eHealth tool would increase their confidence in their ability, and their GP's ability, to manage their survivorship care. GPs agreed that an eHealth tool would provide easier access to survivors' medical information and increase their capacity to provide support during survivorship. Some GPs (7%) and survivors (43%) reported being hesitant to use eHealth tools due to privacy/security concerns. Conclusion: Overall, eHealth tools appear acceptable and may help to improve the management of late effects for childhood cancer survivors and assist their GPs to coordinate their care. Innovation: Concerns raised by key stakeholders should be addressed in the design of eHealth technologies to optimise their uptake and effectiveness.

"We Have All This Knowledge to Give, So Use Us as a Resource": Partnering with Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors to Determine Consumer-Led Research Priorities.

Purpose: Involvement of adolescent and young adult (AYAs) cancer survivors as consumers in research is increasingly encouraged, yet few studies have identified the feasibility and acceptability of methods used to involve them. We aimed to identify: (1) How feasible and acceptable is a consumer-driven, workshop-based research priority-setting approach? And (2) what research priorities do Australian AYA consumers endorse? Methods: AYA cancer survivors diagnosed 15-30 years old and currently younger than 35 years were invited to participate. The AYAs completed a pre-workshop survey to rank their top three priorities from the United Kingdom-based James Lind Alliance list, participated in a 90-minute focus group, and completed a post-workshop evaluation survey. We assessed the workshop feasibility by reviewing considerations, challenges, and enablers of success in the planning and conduct processes. Acceptability was assessed through participants' evaluation surveys and facilitators' informal reflections. The top three priorities were determined from pre-workshop surveys and focus group data. Results: Six survivors participated (M age = 24.2 years, M = 5 years post-treatment, 83% female). All reported that the workshop was an acceptable way to engage with researchers. Costs and recruitment challenges limited the workshop's feasibility. The AYAs' top priority was: What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning, and mental health during and after treatment?Discussion: The AYA survivors found our workshop to be an acceptable way to engage in research priority-setting. However, the feasibility of this approach depends on the resources available to researchers. Future research is needed to define the optimal method of engagement: What is most acceptable for AYAs and feasible for researchers?

A protocol for a discrete choice experiment: understanding patient medicine preferences for managing chronic non-cancer pain.

INTRODUCTION: High rates of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), concerns about adverse effects including dependence among those prescribed potent pain medicines, the recent evidence supporting active rather than passive management strategies and a lack of funding for holistic programme have resulted in challenges around decision making for treatment among clinicians and their patients. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are one way of assessing and valuing treatment preferences. Here, we outline a protocol for a study that assesses patient preferences for CNCP treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A final list of attributes (and their levels) for the DCE was generated using a detailed iterative process. This included a literature review, a focus group and individual interviews with those with CNCP and clinicians who treat people with CNCP. From this process a list of attributes was obtained. Following a review by study investigators including pain and addiction specialists, pharmacists and epidemiologists, the final list of attributes was selected (number of medications, risk of addiction, side effects, pain interference, activity goals, source of information on pain, provider of pain care and out-of-pocket costs). Specialised software was used to construct an experimental design for the survey. The survey will be administered to two groups of participants, those from a longitudinal cohort of patients receiving opioids for CNCP and a convenience sample of patients recruited through Australia's leading pain advocacy body (Painaustralia) and their social media and website. The data from the two participant groups will be initially analysed separately, as their demographic and clinical characteristics may differ substantially (in terms of age, duration of pain and current treatment modality). Mixed logit and latent class analysis will be used to explore heterogeneity of responses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the University of New South Wales Sydney Human Ethics committee HC16511 (for the focus group discussions, the one-on-one interviews and online survey) and HC16916 (for the cohort). A lay summary will be made available on the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre website and Painaustralia's website. Peer review papers will be submitted, and it is expected the results will be presented at relevant pain management conferences nationally and internationally. These results will also be used to improve understanding of treatment goals between clinicians and those with CNCP.

Bile acid preparation and comprehensive analysis by high performance liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry.

BACKGROUND: Accurate analytical methods for bile acid (BA) analysis are important for clinical diagnosis in newborns, adolescents, and adults. Improvements in speed, sensitivity and simplicity enable BA profiling using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) together with electrospray ionization (ESI) and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HR-MS). RESULTS: We present a method, validated in different species and tissues, enabling a highly sensitive quantitative determination (in a range of 0.24pmol/sample to 1000pmol/sample, corresponding to 0.024-100pmol on column) of up to 36 naturally occurring BAs from as little as 10µl of plasma or serum, 1ml of urine, or 10mg of dried stool. Chromatographic separation is achieved by HPLC using a C18 reversed phase column and a water/methanol gradient. After ESI, BAs are analyzed through HR-MS using orbitrap technology in full scan mode. 30 different BAs and the corresponding internal standards are separated and analyzed in a single run. Six additional BAs are evaluated in a second run using a pentafluorophenyl (PFP) stationary phase. CONCLUSIONS: This method generates detailed human and rodent BA profiles in full scan mode and accurate mass with the advantage of remarkably low required sample volume.