Family strategies for managing childhood cancer: Using traditional and complementary medicine in Southern Egypt.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The use of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is common in children with cancer globally. We aimed to assess the prevalence, types, reasons, perceived effectiveness, and disclosure rate of T&CM use among children with cancer in Southern Egypt. We also investigated whether T&CM use contributed to delays in initial presentation and treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional design was utilized. Data were collected via an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Eligible children and their caregivers at the South Egypt Cancer Institute were invited to participate. RESULTS: Eighty-six children completed the study (response rate = 86%). T&CM use was reported by 52 (60.5%) patients, with six (11.5%) experienced delayed presentation. The reasons for T&CM use were complementary for 37 (71%) and alternative for 15 (29%) of the participants. The types of T&CM used included herbal (63%), nutritional (33%), witchcraft (29%), and religious (19%) therapies. Approximately 48% of users employed multiple T&CM types. Family members recommended T&CM for 60% of the users. Most patients (65%) perceived T&CM as effective, with 71% initiating its use during the early phases of treatment. Almost all participants (98%) reported that healthcare providers did not inquire about T&CM use. T&CM usage was more prevalent among wealthier families (p = .023). There was no significant relationship between T&CM use and patient gender, diagnosis, residence, or paternal educational level. CONCLUSIONS: The significant utilization of T&CM among children with cancer highlights the need for healthcare providers to engage in open and early discussions with families regarding T&CM use.

Oncology nursing workforce: challenges, solutions, and future strategies.

The global oncology nursing workforce is essential to achieving Sustainable Development Goals 3.4 (reduce non-communicable disease morbidity by a third by 2030) and 3.8 (universal health coverage). Unfortunately, challenges to a robust oncology nursing workforce include nursing shortages, recruitment barriers (eg, perceptions of a demanding specialty with complex care and hazardous work environments), and burnout. Innovative recruitment strategies, onboarding and continuing education programmes, occupational safety measures, and burnout prevention interventions are documented solutions. The long-term effect of COVID-19 on oncology care worldwide is unknown, but immediate therapy interruptions, workforce consequences, and threats to standard oncology nursing practice are addressed here. Retention of experienced oncology nurses is crucial for future cancer control in all countries and must be addressed, particularly in resource-constrained countries with few oncology nursing staff and continuing out-migration of nurses to resource-rich countries. As the cancer burden worldwide increases, the future of the oncology nursing workforce is reflected in the call from the International Council of Nurses, Nursing Now, and WHO for nurses to move to higher levels of leadership, advocacy, and policy making (ie, national cancer control planning) and assume responsibility for their key role in achieving global goals for cancer control.

Essential oncology nursing care along the cancer continuum.

Oncology nurses are at the heart of tackling the increasing global burden of cancer. Their contribution is unique because of the scale and the diversity of care roles and responsibilities in cancer care. In this Series paper, to celebrate the International Year of the Nurse and Midwife, we highlight the contribution and impact of oncology nurses along the cancer care continuum. Delivering people-centred integrated care and optimal communication are essential components of oncology nursing care, which are often played down. More oncology nurses using, doing, and leading research will further show the key nursing impact on care as part of a team. The oncology nurse influence in saving lives through prevention and early detection of cancer is noteworthy. Supportive care, the central pillar of oncology nursing, enables and empowers people to self-manage where possible. Globally, oncology nurses make a great positive difference to cancer care worldwide; their crucial contribution throughout the continuum of care warrants the inclusion and promotion of nursing in every country's cancer strategy. 2020 is the year of the nurse: let us take this learning to the future.

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.

The Latin American Center for Pediatric Oncology Nursing Education: development, implementation, and accomplishments.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric oncology nurses in low- and middle-income countries have limited access to specialized education and clinical training. This is a major impediment for treating children with cancer and contributes to the disparity in survival rates between high- and low-income countries. The International Outreach Nursing Program at St Jude Children's Research Hospital established full-time nurse educator positions at partner sites throughout Latin America. Experienced nurses were hired as educators; however, they had no formal pediatric oncology education, limited teaching experience, and no mentors as this was a new nursing role in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to create a regional education center to prepare nurse educators to succeed in this pioneering role. INTERVENTIONS: The Latin American Center for Pediatric Oncology Nursing Education was created at Calvo Mackenna Hospital in Santiago, Chile, to provide education, resources, and support to educators. Education resources, including a comprehensive orientation program and courses in chemotherapy and central venous line care, were developed. A 4-week on-site comprehensive educator course and an organized support system were implemented. RESULTS: Education, resources, and support have been provided to 13 nurse educators representing 7 Latin American countries. The educators have provided pediatric oncology education to more than 1000 nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The center promotes excellence in pediatric oncology nursing by preparing and supporting educators, who in turn educate the entire nursing staff at partner sites. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurse educators equipped with knowledge and skills can improve the quality of care and ultimately survival of patients throughout Latin America.