Assessment of complementary health approaches use in pediatric oncology: Modification and preliminary validation of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?" (WHAT) questionnaires.

OBJECTIVE: Complementary Health Approaches (CHA) are commonly used by children with cancer; however, a few health care providers (HCPs) inquire about the use of CHA. A standardized questionnaire could facilitate such clinical discussions. We aimed to adapt and determine the face and content validity of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments are you using?" (WHAT) child and parent-report questionnaires in pediatric oncology. METHODS: An electronic Delphi survey that included children with cancer (8-18 years), parents, and HCPs and CHA researchers was conducted to reach consensus on the content of the WHAT questionnaires in pediatric oncology. Children and parents from the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), and HCPs and researchers from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology and Pediatric Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research and Education Network completed the survey. To determine the face and content validity of the questionnaires, two iterative cycles of individual interviews were conducted with purposive samples of children (8-18 years), parents, and HCPs from SickKids. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all domains and items of the original WHAT questionnaires after one Delphi cycle (n = 61). For face and content validity testing, the first cycle of interviews (n = 19) revealed that the questionnaires were mostly comprehensive and relevant. However, the paper-based format of the original WHAT was not user-friendly, and generic items were vague and not aimed at facilitating clinical dialogues about CHA use. The WHAT questionnaires were then modified into electronic cancer-specific self- and proxy-report questionnaires including 13 and 15 items, respectively. The second cycle (n = 21) showed no need for further changes. CONCLUSIONS: The modified electronic cancer-specific WHAT questionnaires showed adequate face and content validity. The next step is to determine inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of administration of the modified WHAT questionnaires in pediatric oncology.

Inter-Rater Reliability, Construct Validity, and Feasibility of the Modified "Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?" (WHAT) Questionnaires for Assessing the Use of Complementary Health Approaches in Pediatric Oncology.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to test the inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of the modified "Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?" (WHAT) questionnaires in pediatric oncology; Methods: Parent-child dyads were invited to complete self- and proxy-report-modified WHAT, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, demographics, a diary of the child's recent use of CHA, and a questionnaire assessing the aspects of feasibility. Parents were asked to complete a satisfaction of their children's use of the CHA survey; Results: Twenty-four dyads completed the study. The mean weighted kappa showed strong inter-rater reliability (k = 0.77, SE = 0.056), and strong agreements between the modified WHAT and the diary (self-report [k = 0.806, SE = 0.046] and proxy-report [k = 0.894, SE = 0.057]). Significant relationships were found only between recent and non-recent CHA users in relation to the easy access to CHA (self-report [p = 0.02], proxy-report [p < 0.001]). The mean scores of the feasibility scale (out of 7.0) for the self- and proxy-report were 5.64 (SD = 0.23) and 5.81 (SD = 0.22), respectively, indicating the feasibility of the modified WHAT; Conclusions: The findings provide initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the modified WHAT and their feasibility. Further research is needed to test the theoretical relationships and further explore the validity and reliability of the modified WHAT.

Questionnaires assessing the use of complementary health approaches in pediatrics and their measurement properties: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify questionnaires assessing the use of complementary health approaches (CHA) in pediatrics, describe their content, and appraise the methodological quality of the studies and the measurement properties of the questionnaires. METHOD: Major electronic databases were searched from 2011 to 2020. Studies which aimed to assess the use of CHA and studies which reported developing and validating CHA questionnaires in pediatrics were included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data, and rated the methodological quality of the studies and measurement properties of the questionnaires using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. When consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was consulted. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included. From these studies, 35 CHA questionnaires with a variety of different items were identified. Only two studies aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of two questionnaires. One questionnaire, available as a self- and proxy-report, was initially validated in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and the other, available as an interviewer-administered questionnaire, was validated in children with cancer. According to the COSMIN, the methodological quality of both studies was inadequate or doubtful, and both questionnaires was not thoroughly validated. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed a lack of a thoroughly validated CHA questionnaire in pediatrics. However, two questionnaires were found to hold promise. To address this gap, one of the existing questionnaires should be adapted and further validated.

Psychological and Physical Interventions for the Management of Cancer-Related Pain in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients: An Integrative Review.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise current evidence related to the effectiveness of psychological and physical (nonpharmacologic) pain management modalities for children and young adults with cancer
. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (from database inception to June 2013) for clinical trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 32 unique studies were identified. Substantial heterogeneity existed across identified studies, precluding meta-analysis. Therefore, a narrative review of included studies is presented. Studies featured psychological and/or physical pain interventions for children and young adults (N = 1,171) aged 1-21 years with a variety of cancer diagnoses. Interventions included aromatherapy, art therapy, distraction, hypnosis, physical activity, physical positioning, touch therapy, and multimodal cognitive-behavior therapy. Twenty-two studies (69%) reported success in preventing or reducing pain intensity. The level of evidence and methodologic quality of studies were generally low
. CONCLUSIONS: Current nonpharmacologic pain interventions for pediatric and young adult patients with cancer are diverse. Several modalities significantly decreased pain intensity, suggesting that these strategies may be effective methods of pain treatment, particularly in the case of painful medical procedures. Future well-designed, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials are needed to further discern treatment effects on pain and other health outcomes in this population and to compare the relative effectiveness of different modalities. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses play a key role in pain assessment and management in pediatric and young adult patients with cancer. The studies included in this review constitute the beginnings of an evidence base that supports the need to implement psychological and physical interventions to improve pain outcomes in pediatric and young adult patients with cancer.