Nutritional assessment and dietetic resource for children and young people with cancer in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Both under- and overnutrition may have adverse impact on outcome of cancer in children and teenagers/young adults (CTYA). Previous studies confirm that screening for nutritional risk and detection of nutritional abnormality is inconsistently undertaken in practice. METHODS: We undertook a survey of dietetic resource and nutritional assessment in CTYA principal treatment centres (PTC) in the United Kingdom. Responses were received from 95% children's and 69% TYA PTC. RESULTS: Only 13/18 (72%) children's PTC, and one of 11 (9%) TYA PTC, met national standards for dietetic resource; one of 18 (6%) paediatric and six of 11(54%) TYA PTC had no such resource. While resources were greater in larger paediatric PTC, who were also most likely to undertake stem cell transplantation, resources in TYA PTC were too low to assess relationship to centre size. Most centres focused resources on inpatient care and <50% considered staffing adequate; 82% used nutritional screening tools but without consistency in the tool used. Weight and height were the principal method for assessment, but with inconsistency in the frequency of measurement and use in different clinical settings. Measures derived from weight and height, including body mass index (BMI), were inconsistently utilised. The use of arm anthropometry was rare despite evidence that use increases recognition of undernutrition. Detailed nutritional assessment was infrequently attempted. CONCLUSION: Barriers to adequate nutritional assessment and treatment for all patients include resource limitations (particularly TYA), training for staff, and uncertainty about detailed assessment of nutritional status. There is a need to harmonise screening and assessment of nutritional status in CTYA with cancer.

Reporting the whole story: Analysis of the 'out-of-scope' questions from the James Lind Alliance Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Priority Setting Partnership Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a UK-wide survey to identify the top 10 research questions for young people's cancer. We conducted secondary analysis of questions submitted, which were 'out-of-scope' of the original survey aim. We sought to disseminate these questions, to inform practice, policy and the development of potential interventions to support young people with cancer. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 with a current/previous cancer diagnosis, their families/friends/partners and professionals who work with this population. METHODS: Eight hundred and fifty-five potential research questions were submitted, and 326 were classified as 'out-of-scope'. These questions, along with 49 'free-text' comments, were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 375 out-of-scope questions and comments were submitted by: 68 young people, 81 family members/partners/friends and 42 professionals. Ten overarching themes were identified: diagnostic experience; communication; coordination of care; information needs and lack of information; service provision; long-term effects and aftercare support; family support; financial impact; end-of life care; and research methods and current research. CONCLUSIONS: The need to tailor services, information and communication is a striking thread evidenced across the 'out-of-scope' questions. Gaps in information highlight implications for practice in revisiting information needs throughout the cancer trajectory. We must advocate for specialist care for young people and promote the research priorities and these findings to funding bodies, charities, young people and health and social care policymakers, in order to generate an evidence base to inform effective interventions across the cancer trajectory and improve outcomes. PATIENT/PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Patients and carers were equal stakeholders throughout.

Supporting families of children with an undiagnosed genetic condition: Using co-design to ensure the right person is in the right post doing the right job.

BACKGROUND: Families and professionals caring for a child without a definitive diagnosis face unique challenges, particularly in relation to managing uncertainty; access to healthcare; obtaining relevant information and support; and trying to navigate a healthcare system that is often fragmented. We used co-design to inform the establishment of the first UK specialist nursing post dedicated to working with children with undiagnosed genetic conditions and their families. OBJECTIVES: (1) To understand what families and hospital staff want from the service; (2) To understand how the post should be operationalized in practice; (3) To develop the job description and person specification for the postholder. METHODS: A range of approaches were used to collect data: interviews (nine parents and 10 hospital staff); a focus group (three parents); a creative workshop (six patients and siblings); and an online forum (81 parents). Data were analyzed using framework and thematic analysis. The strands of data were brought together and reviewed as a whole to formulate the postholder's job description and person specification. RESULTS: Stakeholders identified nine key elements to the role which were incorporated into the job description: practical support; point of contact; community liaison; signposting to other services; care coordination; supporting families; advocacy; raising awareness; and emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Highlighted in this paper are the practical aspects of engaging and involving all relevant stakeholders in the process of co-designing a new post and subsequent staff recruitment. The flexibility employed in the setting and methods of data collection were instrumental in ensuring that the views of a diverse range of participants were ascertained. A major consideration is the resources required to undertake co-design, in terms of time and finances. We believe that the resources required for the co-design are offset by the advantages of having the right person in the right post, doing the right job.

'We don't know what tomorrow will bring': Parents' experiences of caring for a child with an undiagnosed genetic condition.

BACKGROUND: Families and healthcare professionals caring for a sick or disabled child without a definitive diagnosis face unique challenges, particularly in relation to managing uncertainty, access to healthcare and coordination of care. There has been little research exploring the impact this has on families, their support needs or their experience of health services. METHODS: This qualitative interview study included interviews with 14 mothers of children with undiagnosed genetic conditions. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes emerged, uncovering overlapping patterns in the data: (1) living with complexity amidst uncertainty-'We don't know what tomorrow will bring'; (2) parental role-'I do everything I can'; (3) parental role-'Not coping is not an option'; and (4) support needs-'There's lots of help that just isn't out there'. CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly demonstrate the stresses faced when caring for a child with an undiagnosed genetic condition. Some themes are shared with the experience of other families caring for children with complex needs. However, parents were doing all they could for their child in the context of a life of uncertainty, with the absence of a clear diagnosis clearly causing additional stress that impacted on the whole family. Impact on their emotional and physical well-being was evident; they described times of feeling stressed, worried and anxious. They were confused due to being overloaded with information and frustrated by a lack of care coordination. Parents did not appear to prioritize their own well-being and held back their emotions to protect themselves and others. As a result, they had many unmet needs, particularly relating to emotional support.

Reducing unintentional injuries in under fives: Development and testing of a mobile phone app.

BACKGROUND: Unintentional injuries are a leading cause of preventable death and a major cause of ill health and disability in children under 5 years of age. A health promotion mobile phone application, "Grow up Safely" (GUS), was developed to support parents and carers in reducing unintentional injuries in this population of children. METHODS: A prototype of the mobile application was developed to deliver health education on unintentional injury prevention linked to stages of child development. In order to explore the usability of the app and refine its content, three focus groups were conducted with 15 mothers. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The majority of participants reported previous use of health apps, mainly related to pregnancy and recommended by health professionals. The app was considered user-friendly and easy to navigate. Participants in two focus groups found the app informative and offered new information, and they would consider using it. Participants in the "young mum's" group considered the advice to be "common sense" but found the language too complex. All participants commented that further development of push-out notifications and endorsement by a reputable source would increase their engagement with the app. CONCLUSION: The GUS mobile phone app, aimed at reducing unintentional injuries in children under five, was supported by mothers as a health promotion app. They would consider downloading it, particularly if recommended by a health professional or endorsed by a reputable organization. Further development is planned with push-out notifications and wider feasibility testing to engage targeted groups, such as young mothers, fathers, and other carers.

Transition of care for adolescents from paediatric services to adult health services.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that the process of transition from paediatric (child) to adult health services is often associated with deterioration in the health of adolescents with chronic conditions.Transitional care is the term used to describe services that seek to bridge this care gap. It has been defined as 'the purposeful, planned movement of adolescents and young adults with chronic physical and medical conditions from child-centred to adult-oriented health care systems'. In order to develop appropriate services for adolescents, evidence of what works and what factors act as barriers and facilitators of effective interventions is needed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve the transition of care for adolescents from paediatric to adult health services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2015, Issue 1, (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Knowledge to 19 June 2015. We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted experts and study authors for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before- and after-studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs) that evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention (care model or clinical pathway), that aimed to improve the transition of care for adolescents from paediatric to adult health services. We considered adolescents with any chronic condition that required ongoing clinical care, who were leaving paediatric services and going on to receive services in adult healthcare units, and their families. Participating providers included all health professionals responsible for the care of young people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from included papers, assessed the risk of bias of each study, and assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Authors were contacted for missing data. We reported the findings of the studies as pre- and post-intervention means and calculated the unadjusted absolute change from baseline with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (N = 238 participants) that explored: a two-day workshop-based transition preparation training for adolescents with spina bifida; a nurse-led, one-on-one, teaching session with the additional support of a 'health passport' for adolescents with heart disease; a web- and SMS-based educational intervention for adolescents with a range of different conditions; and a structured comprehensive transition programme with a transition co-ordinator for adolescents with type 1 diabetes.One study evaluating a one-on-one nurse-led intervention, and one evaluating a technology-based intervention suggested that these interventions may lead to slight improvements in transitional readiness and chronic disease self-management measured at six- to eight-month follow-ups (low certainty evidence). Results with the TRAQ self-management tool were: MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.56 and MD 0.43; 95% CI; -0.09 to 0.95; with the TRAQ self-advocacy tool: MD 0.37; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.80; and with the PAM tool were: MD 10; 95% CI 2.96 to 17.04. In contrast, transition-preparation training delivered via a two-day workshop for patients with spina bifida may lead to little or no difference in measures of self-care practice and general health behaviours when measured using the DSCPI-90©.Two studies evaluated the use of health services. One study evaluated a technology-based intervention and another a comprehensive transition programme; these interventions may lead to slightly more young people taking positive steps to initiate contact with health professionals themselves (Relative risk (RR): 4.87; 95% CI 0.24 to 98.12 and RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 6.94, respectively; low certainty evidence.Young people's knowledge of their disease may slightly improve with a nurse-led, one-on-one intervention to prepare young people for transition to an adult congenital heart programme (MD 14; 95% CI 2.67 to 25.33; one study; low certainty evidence).Disease-specific outcome measures were reported in two studies, both of which led to little or no difference in outcomes (low certainty evidence). One study found little or no difference between intervention and control groups. A second study found that follow-up HbA1c in young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus increased by 1.2% for each percentage increase in baseline HbA1c, independent of treatment group (1.2%; 95% CI 0.4 to 1.9; P = 0.01).Transition interventions may lead to little or no difference in well-being or quality of life as measured with the PARS III or PedsQ (two studies; low certainty evidence). Both the technology-based intervention and the two-day workshop for young people with spina bifida found little or no difference between intervention and control groups (MD 1.29; 95% CI -4.49 to 7.07). One study did not report the data.Four telephone support calls from a transition co-ordinator may lead to little or no difference in rates of transfer from paediatric to adult diabetes services (one study; low certainty evidence). At 12-month follow-up, there was little or no difference between groups of young people receiving usual care or a telephone support (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.08)). They may slightly reduce the risk of disease-related hospital admissions at 12-month follow-up (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.40). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence (four small studies; N = 238), covers a limited range of interventions developed to facilitate transition in a limited number of clinical conditions, with only four to 12 months follow-up. These follow-up periods may not be long enough for any changes to become apparent as transition is a lengthy process. There was evidence of improvement in patients' knowledge of their condition in one study, and improvements in self-efficacy and confidence in another, but since few studies were eligible for this review, and the overall certainty of the body of this evidence is low, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of the evaluated interventions. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the intervention effect and likely could change our conclusions. There is considerable scope for the rigorous evaluation of other models of transitional care, reporting on clinical outcomes with longer term follow-up.

A critical review of the use of technology to provide psychosocial support for children and young people with long-term conditions.

Advances in technology have offered health professionals alternative mediums of providing support to patients with long-term conditions. This critical review evaluated and assessed the benefit of electronic media technologies in supporting children and young people with long-term conditions. Of 664 references identified, 40 met the inclusion criteria. Supportive technology tended to increase disease-related knowledge and improve aspects of psychosocial function. Supportive technology did not improve quality of life, reduce health service use or decrease school absences. The poor methodological quality of current evidence and lack of involvement of users in product development contribute to the uncertainty that supportive technology is beneficial.

Transition From Child to Adult Care--'It's Not a One-Off Event': Development of Benchmarks to Improve the Experience.

The transition from child to adult services is a crucial time in the health of young people who may potentially fall into a poorly managed 'care gap'. A multi-site, multi-staged study was undertaken to identify the key aspects of a transitional programme of care for young people. Through a process of mapping, which involved drawing on primary and secondary data, a clinical practice-benchmark tool was developed. Benchmarks are a health care quality performance measurement 'tool'. They provide clinical teams with standards that services can measure themselves against to see how they are doing. They are used in a comparing and sharing activity, using a structured and systematic approach, to share best practice. They offer a mechanism to look at processes, and provide an opportunity to analyse skills and attitudes, which may be the hidden narrative in benchmarking. This paper describes steps in the development of benchmarks for transition to adult care, often associated with low patient and family satisfaction. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups, workshops and interviews from 13 young people with long-term health conditions, 11 parents, 36 professionals and 21 experts leading on transition within the United Kingdom. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. For young people and their parents/carers to experience timely and effective transition, eight factors and their associated indicators of best practice were developed from the primary and secondary data and refined through an iterative process. We recommend their use to clinical teams to inform system level strategies as well as evaluation programmes.

Transition of young people from children's into adults' services: what works for whom and in what circumstances - protocol for a realist synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: The process of transitioning young people from children's or adolescents' health services into adults' services is a crucial time in the lives and health of young people and has been reported to be disjointed rather than a process of preparation in which they are involved. Such transitions not only fail to meet the needs of young people and families at this time of significant change, but they may also result in a deterioration in health, or disengagement with services, which can have deleterious long-term consequences. Despite the wealth of literature on this topic, there has yet to be a focus on what works for whom, in what circumstances, how and why, in relation to all young people transitioning from children's into adults' services, which this realist synthesis aims to address. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This realist synthesis will be undertaken in six stages: (1) the scope of the review will be defined; (2) initial programme theories (IPTs) developed; (3) evidence searched; (4) selection and appraisal; (5) data extraction and synthesis; and (6) finally, refine/confirm programme theory. A theory-driven, iterative approach using the 'On Your Own Feet Ahead' theoretical framework, will be combined with an evidence search including a review of national transition policy documents, supplemented by citation tracking, snowballing and stakeholder feedback to develop IPTs. Searches of EMBASE, EMCARE, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, APA PsycINFO and AMED will be conducted from 2014 to present, supplemented with grey literature, free-text searching (title, abstract and keywords) and citation tracking. Data selection will be based on relevance and rigour and extracted and synthesised iteratively with the aim of identifying and exploring causal links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Results will be reported according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards Quality and Publication Standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This realist synthesis forms part of the National Transition Evaluation Study, which has received ethical and regulatory approval (IRAS ID: 313576). Results will be disseminated through peer-review publication, conference presentations and working with healthcare organisations, stakeholder groups and charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05867745. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023388985.

Effective transition of young people with long-term conditions into adult services.

Healthcare transition involves the purposeful and planned process of preparing, empowering and supporting young people with long-term conditions and their families when they are moving from child to adult services. Transition is a series of events that provides the young person with the knowledge and skills they require to be able to function in adult services. Until recently little has been done to address the perceived barriers and challenges involved in transition. In this article, the authors discuss the challenges associated with effective transition and describe their experience of implementing a healthcare transition pathway using a quality improvement model.

'They could not see our eyes, they cannot see our faces, they do not know who we are and that is hard': a qualitative interview study with staff caring for children and families in a UK specialist children's hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Despite lower rates of illness, morbidity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in children during the COVID-19 pandemic, their health and well-being has been significantly impacted. Emerging evidence indicates that this includes experiences of hospital-based care for them and their families. As part of a series of multisite research studies to undertake a rapid appraisal of perceptions of hospital staff, working during the pandemic, our study focused on clinical and non-clinical staff perceptions of the impact of COVID-19 on aspects of care delivery, preparedness and staffing specific to a specialist children's hospital. DESIGN: Qualitative study using a qualitative rapid appraisal design. Hospital staff participated in a telephone interview. We used a semistructured interview guide, and recorded and transcribed all interviews. Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab Rapid Assessment Procedure sheets were used to share data; team-based analysis was facilitated using a framework approach. SETTING: Specialist children's hospital in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six staff representing a range of roles within the hospital: 19 (53%) nurses, 7 (19%) medical staff and 10 (28%) other staff groups (including radiographers, managers, play staff, schoolteachers, domestic and portering staff and social workers). RESULTS: Three overarching themes relating to staff perceptions of the impact on children and families were identified, each containing subthemes: (1) same hospital but different for everyone, (2) families paid the price and (3) the digital world. They illustrated that providing care and treatment for children and families changed profoundly during the pandemic, particularly during lockdown periods. Adaptations to deliver clinical care, play, schooling and other therapies online were rapidly put into action; however, benefits were not universal or always inclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The disruption to a central principle of children's hospital care-the presence and involvement of families-was of critical concern to staff, suggesting a need for the specific impact of COVID-19 on children's services to be accounted for.

What matters to you? Engaging with children in the James Lind Alliance Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Previous priority setting exercises have sought to involve children, but in the final reporting, it is evident that few children had been engaged through the process. A primary aim in the Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership was to find out from children what they want research to focus on. We report on our experience to inform methods of engagement with children in future James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships and similar exercises. METHODS: We followed the James Lind Alliance process, collecting and shortlisting questions via online surveys with adult survivors of childhood cancer, carers, and professionals, and holding a final workshop. Alongside this, a parallel process to collect and prioritise questions from children was undertaken. We created animations for parents/carers to explain the project and surveys to children, gathered questions via online surveys and held a workshop with children to identify their priorities. RESULTS: Sixty-one children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings, aged 3-21 years, submitted 252 potential questions/topics via the surveys. Submissions were refined into 24 summary questions. These questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children; they also added more questions on topics of importance to them. Workshop participants prioritised the Top 5 questions; top priority was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 also included cancer prevention, treatments closer to home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final workshop at which the Top 10 priorities were decided, all five children's priorities were reflected in the final Top 10. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that it is possible to successfully involve children directly in setting priorities for future research. Future priority setting exercises on topics relevant to children, should seek to include their views. The Children's Cancer Top 10 priorities reflect the voices of children and should inform the funding of future research.

Priority Setting Partnerships find out what areas of research are important to patients, families, and the professionals who care for them. Few Priority Setting Partnerships have involved children, so what matters to them may not have been well-represented. The Children's Cancer Priority Setting Partnership aimed to find out directly from children what research we should do. We collected questions/topics for research from children using online surveys. We made animations to explain the project and surveys to children. Two-hundred and fifty-two questions were sent in by 61 children and young people with cancer and 10 siblings. We grouped similar questions together into 24 summary questions. Summary questions were discussed at a workshop with eight children. Workshop participants added more questions on topics that mattered to them, and decided their Top 5 questions. The top question was, 'How can we make being in hospital a better experience for children and young people? (like having better food, internet, toys, and open visiting so other family members can be more involved in the child's care)'. The Top 5 questions included: preventing cancer, having treatments nearer home, early diagnosis, and emotional support. These questions were taken to the final project workshop, this was with adults, including childhood cancer survivors, where the Top 10 priorities were decided. All five children's priorities were included in the Top 10. We have shown it is possible to successfully involve children in setting research priorities. Future priority setting exercises on topics that affect children should actively seek and include their views.

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities. PARTICIPANTS: Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?' CONCLUSIONS: We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Practical approaches to seeking assent from children.

AIM: To describe and evaluate two approaches--a storyboard and a wordsearch--that the authors used with children aged four to 12 years to obtain assent. BACKGROUND: The assent process is vital in helping children to understand the elements of a research project and to make a choice of whether or not to participate. However, the methods for obtaining assent are not well documented. DATA SOURCES: Two researchers' thematic reviews of the primary researcher's field notes, taken during a study of eating problems during chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: The assent process appeared to be an enjoyable, positive experience for many children. They appeared to understand what participation entailed--that it was voluntary and that they had a choice. CONCLUSION: When using child-centred techniques, children are aware of what being in a research study will mean to them. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Researchers can be confident in gaining assent from children as young as five years.

Care coordination, consistency and continuity: the case of the key worker role in children's cancer care.

PURPOSE: The overall aim was to evaluate the key worker role across principal treatment centres for children with cancer in England, Wales and Scotland. METHODS: Mixed-methods case study gathering data from multiple perspectives using questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and reports/performance documents over a two-year period. Framework approach was adopted to analyse transcripts and documentary data. RESULTS: Participants included: 22 nurse specialist key workers, 103 parents, 85 professionals and 10 children/young people. Qualitative and quantitative data were woven together, to best illuminate key worker services. Four main models of care were described as well as the context of care and process of care. Key working effectiveness centred around three pillars: care coordination; expert knowledge, experience and expertise; relationship. These were essential to improved family experience, emotional wellbeing, and delivery of individualized care closer to home. CONCLUSIONS: The role is complex and diverse, responding to local needs. Certain conditions, (e.g., high caseload) placed limits on enacting the three pillars, diminishing the positive experience of families. When they worked well, key workers reduced the fragmented nature of services and families placed great value on keeping the same key worker from diagnosis into long-term care. Retaining these roles, where already in place, or including, if not, we would recommend, factoring into budgets to sustain and expand such roles.

Support interventions provided during palliative care to families with dependent children when a parent has terminal illness: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and map support interventions provided during palliative care to families with dependent children when a parent has a terminal illness. INTRODUCTION: For dependent children, losing a parent through terminal illness can be one of the most traumatic experiences they will face. Without age-appropriate information and support, parental death can lead to unresolved grief, post-traumatic stress, and longer-term negative social, emotional, educational, and behavioral consequences. Support from health care professionals is provided, but challenges within hospice and community palliative care mean the needs of dependent children may not be addressed. Greater emphasis is often placed on children's and families' bereavement needs as opposed to their pre-bereavement needs. The status of pre-bereavement support in palliative care for these families has not been documented. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include studies of support interventions provided to families with dependent children when a parent has a terminal illness that are delivered during palliative care and in settings including, but not limited to, hospices, hospitals, and the community (including family and care homes). Empirical, peer-reviewed studies based on qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods data, and gray literature, reporting any stage of intervention development will be included. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI approach for scoping reviews. Multiple database searches will be conducted. Two authors will independently review full-text articles and extract data. Interventions will be mapped in terms of characteristics, evaluation methods, and implementation challenges. Data will be presented in tables, diagrammatic form, and narrative summary.

Gathering expert opinion to inform benchmarks to support transitional care.

This study aimed to (1) explore views of known experts leading on transition, (2) gather insights on the essential features of transitional care models and (3) highlight opportunities for and barriers to change: to inform core elements of benchmarks for transitional care. We held three workshops ( n = 20) and used a telephone interview ( n = 1) with health and social care professionals with expertise working with young people with a range of health conditions and disabilities. The workshops included individual brainstorming and group discussion. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The general consensus from stakeholders' discussions about transition was that 'things have become stuck'. Themes included: professionals' attitudes towards and knowledge about young people and transition, organizational barriers and 'lack of joined-up thinking' between services. Our work offers further insight into experts' perceptions of transition services within the United Kingdom. It is clear that there is still much to be done to improve transition, to better meet the needs of young people and parents and begin to offer equitable access to transitional care programmes. The benchmarks offer a starting point for professionals seeking to improve transition through enabling the identification of gaps in services and providing a platform to share successful practice initiatives.

Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of 'out of scope' questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.

Methodological issues when using the draw and write technique with children aged 6 to 12 years.

Researchers are responsible for using techniques that allow children to contribute their perspectives in a way that is most suited to their strengths and preferences. The draw and write technique is a method that needs to be used carefully and sensitively if children are to become active participants in revealing their world as they see it. In this article, we explore the issues for the child and researcher of using the draw and write technique as a participatory research methodology. Reflections on the technique are drawn from our experience of using it with children aged 6 to 12 years. This was part of a larger study undertaken to enable children aged 4 to 18 years with a diagnosis of cancer to give their views about hospital care. The participating children's verbal and artistic contributions illustrate how children are able to convey their opinions when there is an enabling climate created.

Specialist nurse key worker in children's cancer care: Professionals' perspectives on the core characteristics of the role.

PURPOSE: To describe the development and implementation of the specialist nurse key worker role across 18 children's cancer centres in the United Kingdom, and draw out significant factors for success to inform future development of the role across a range of specialities. METHOD: Data were obtained through 42 semi-structured interviews and a focus group with 12 key workers. Framework analysis revealed two main themes: models of care and key workers' perspectives of the role. RESULTS: Four models of care were identified and described, roles were organised along a continuum of in reach and outreach with either the presence or absence of home visits and direct delivery of clinical care. Key workers' perspectives of the advantages of the role included: coordination of care (being the main point of contact for families/professionals), experience and expertise (communication/information) and the relationship with families. The main challenges identified were: time, caseload size, geographical area covered, staffing numbers and resources available in the hospital and community. CONCLUSION: The label 'key worker' was disliked by many participants, as the loss of 'specialist nurse' in the title failed to reflect professional group. Leaving aside terminology, key workers shared core role elements within a continuum of in reach and outreach work and their involvement in direct clinical care varied throughout the pathway. Irrespective of the model they worked in, the key worker provided clinical, emotional, educational, and practical support to families, through the coordination of care, experience and expertise and relationship with families and professionals.