Characteristics of Health Care Settings Where Adolescents and Young Adults Receive Care for ALL.

PURPOSE: Individuals diagnosed with cancer between 15 and 39 years (adolescent and young adult [AYA]) face unique vulnerability. Detail is lacking about care delivery for these patients, especially those with ALL. We address these knowledge gaps by describing AYA ALL care delivery details at National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) (sub)affiliates by model of care. METHODS: Participating institutions treated at least one AYA with ALL from 2012 to 2016. Study-specific criteria were used to determine the number of unique clinical facilities (CFs) per NCORP and their model of care (adult/internal medicine [IM], pediatric, mixed [both]). Surveys completed by NCORPs for each CF by model of care captured size, resources, services, and communication. RESULTS: Among 84 participating CFs (adult/IM, n=47; pediatric, n=15; mixed, n=24), 34% treated 5-10 AYAs with ALL annually; adult/IM CFs more often treated <5 (adult/IM, 60%; pediatric, 40%; mixed, 29%). Referral decisions were commonly driven by an age/diagnosis combination (58%), with frequent ALL-specific age minimums (87%) or maximums (80%). Medical, navigational, and social work services were similar across models while psychology was available at more pediatric CFs (pediatric, 80%; adult/IM, 40%; mixed, 46%-54%). More pediatric or mixed CFs reported oncologists interacting with pediatric/adult counterparts via tumor boards (pediatric, 93%; adult/IM, 26%; mixed, 96%) or initiating contact (pediatric, 100%; adult/IM, 77%; mixed 96%); more pediatric CFs reported an affiliated counterpart (pediatric, 53%; adult, 19%). Most CFs reported no AYA-specific resources (79%) or meetings (83%-98%). CONCLUSION: System-level aspects of AYA ALL care delivery have not been examined previously. At NCORPs, these characteristics differ by models of care. Additional work is ongoing to investigate the impact of these facility-level factors on guideline-concordant care in this population. Together, these findings can inform a system-level intervention for diverse practice settings.

Pediatric psychosocial preventative health model: Achieving equitable psychosocial care for children and families.

OBJECTIVE: The Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model (PPPHM) is a three-tier model of family psychosocial risk used to guide intervention approaches in pediatric healthcare settings. Screening all families to determine levels of risk supports equitable care. We review evidence from papers using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), a brief caregiver-report measure of family psychosocial risk with scores that map to the PPPHM, to characterize the distribution of risk. We predict that across study samples the distribution of risk on the PPPHM will be approximately 60% universal (low), 30% targeted (moderate), and 10% clinical (high). METHOD: We conducted a scoping review searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Emcare, and PsycInfo for articles that reported PPPHM data using the PAT. RESULTS: Forty-seven samples from 43 papers were included, reporting on patients with 17 conditions. PPPHM scores were highly consistent with median percentages of 55% universal, 34% targeted, and 11% clinical. There is evidence of higher levels of risk for samples using the Spanish version of the PAT, from weight management programs and with families who have children with autism spectrum disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate consistent patterns of psychosocial risk distributions on the PPPHM and support implementation of universal family psychosocial risk screening, followed by delivery of personalized care based on level of risk. Screening all families promotes health equity in pediatric health care settings by normalizing the importance of understanding psychosocial risk and resiliencies and assuring family input in the delivery of integrated psychosocial care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Adaptation and pilot implementation of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool for Autism Spectrum Disorders (PAT-ASD).

Recognizing the multifaceted and chronic demands on families of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and challenges in providing care matched to need, we adapted the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), a brief caregiver-report screener of family psychosocial risk, for this population. Study methods included literature review, focus groups with providers, and feedback from caregivers. The PAT-ASD is consistent with the original PAT, with new items reflecting core behavioral manifestations of ASD and parent and family challenges associated with chronicity. The PAT-ASD was implemented in a four-month pilot and was completed online by 59% of families. Although further testing of its validity is necessary, the PAT-ASD is a promising means of assessing family psychosocial risk for families of children with ASD.

Advancing health equity in pediatric cancer through implementation of universal family psychosocial risk screening.

BACKGROUND: Unaddressed psychosocial risks may contribute to disparities in cancer care outcomes and may be addressed by early psychosocial risk screening. In a study implementing universal family psychosocial risk screening in 18 children's cancer programs in the United States, parents, clinicians, and organizational leaders described the importance of universal screening to health equity. PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to (1) describe the perspectives of parents, clinicians, and organizational leaders regarding the importance of universal family psychosocial risk screening in childhood cancer care and (2) identify barriers and facilitators to improving health equity and decreasing health disparities in childhood cancer through universal family psychosocial screening. METHODS: Nineteen participants (parent advocates, clinicians, leaders in professional organizations and healthcare policy) were interviewed. Directed content analysis was used to identify thematic descriptions. RESULTS: Theme 1: Personal (individual child and family) and systemic barriers to health care contribute to health disparities and can be identified by universal family psychosocial risk screening in pediatric cancer. Theme 2: Universal family psychosocial risk screening in pediatric cancer creates the opportunity for health equity through personalized psychosocial care. Theme 3: Recognition of health inequities and guidance from the Standards of Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and their Families suggest that clinicians and healthcare systems are ethically obligated to screen, provide resources, and advocate for services to meet identified needs. CONCLUSIONS: Universal family psychosocial risk screening in pediatric oncology creates the opportunity to support efforts for health equity by guiding delivery of personalized psychosocial care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04446728 23 June 2020.

Validating the Factor Structure of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool Using Internet-Based Data.

OBJECTIVE: The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) is a well-validated, brief screener of family psychosocial risk. Since 2014 a web-based version of the PAT (WebPAT) has been available for use by clinicians and researchers, but the psychometric properties have not been examined. The objective of this article was to examine the factor structure and internal consistency of the WebPAT, which was administered to caregivers of youth with cancer. METHODS: The WebPAT was administered to 1,252 caregivers of youth with cancer across 29 institutions. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the factor structure of the WebPAT. Internal consistencies of the total and subscale scores were examined via the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient. The distribution of total PAT score across the three risk categories of the Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model (PPPHM) was also examined. RESULTS: The CFA supported the original seven-factor structure of the PAT (Family Structure, Social Support, Child Problems, Sibling Problems, Family Problems, Stress Reactions, and Family Beliefs). Internal consistencies were strong for the total PAT score and four subscales (Social Support, Child Problems, Sibling Problems, and Family Problems). The distribution of total PAT scores across PPPHM risk categories was consistent with prior research. CONCLUSIONS: The WebPAT is a psychometrically sound screener of psychosocial risk in families of youth with cancer. Healthcare providers can use the WebPAT to assess families' psychosocial risk and guide the provision of psychosocial care. Future research should evaluate the implementation of the PAT and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation.

Using qualitative and participatory methods to refine implementation strategies: universal family psychosocial screening in pediatric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer and their families are at risk for short- and long-term psychosocial difficulties. Screening for psychosocial risk remains inconsistent, leading to inequitable access to psychosocial services. The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) is an evidence-based caregiver report screener of family psychosocial risk ready for implementation in a nationwide cluster randomized trial that will test two implementation strategies across 18 pediatric cancer centers. The current study, conducted in preparation for the trial, solicited the perspectives of key stakeholders about two proposed implementation strategies identified during previous research which focus on health equity and screening of all families (universal screening). Results were used to refine the implementation strategies for testing in the subsequent trial. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 19 key stakeholders (parents, health care providers, pediatric oncology organizations, and pediatric healthcare leaders) were conducted regarding the two implementation strategies. Strategy I is a training webinar; Strategy II is training + implementation enhanced resources, which includes a champion at each site and monthly peer support consultation calls. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis with deductively derived codes based on the Interactive Systems Framework and inductive codes based on emerging data. RESULTS: Stakeholder interviews provided rich data to rigorously modify the proposed implementation strategies. Implementation strategies were modified in consistent with these recommendations: engaging providers by framing family psychosocial screening as an opportunity for more efficient and effective practice; setting clear expectations about the importance of screening 100% of children and their families to achieve the goal of universal screening, equity of care, and reduction of disparities; and adapting successful strategies for systematic implementation of screening to ensure optimal engagement with children and their families throughout their care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder input strengthened implementation strategies by suggesting modifications that emphasized health equity and reduction in health disparities. Using implementation science methods to build on a long-standing program of research provided practical insights about immediate needs of families and historical insights regarding structural inequities such as language differences and access to services. Resulting strategies address all levels of the social ecology for children's cancer care, including the patient, family, provider, healthcare system, and community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04446728 June 23, 2020.

Implementation of family psychosocial risk assessment in pediatric cancer with the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT): study protocol for a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer affects and is affected by multiple levels of the social ecology, including social and relational determinants of health (e.g., economic stability, housing, childcare, healthcare access, child and family problems). The 2015 Standards of Psychosocial Care in Pediatric Cancer outline optimal psychosocial care sensitive to these ecological factors, starting with assessment of psychosocial healthcare needs to promote medical and psychosocial outcomes across all children with cancer. To address the first standard of family psychosocial assessment, the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) is a validated screener ready for broad implementation. METHOD: The PAT will be implemented across a national sample of 18 pediatric cancer programs ranging in size (annual new patients) in a mixed methods, comparative effectiveness study, guided by the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, comparing two implementation strategies. It is hypothesized that implementation will be more successful at the patient/family, provider, and institutional level when training (strategy I) is combined with implementation expanded resources (strategy II). There are three aims: (1) Refine the two implementation strategies using semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 stakeholders including parent advocates, providers, pediatric oncology organization representatives, healthcare industry leaders; (2) Compare the two theoretically based and empirically informed strategies to implement the PAT in English and Spanish using a cluster-randomized controlled trial across 18 sites. Stratified by size, sites will be randomized to cohort (3) and strategy (2). Outcomes include adoption and penetration of screening (patient/family), staff job satisfaction/burnout (provider), and cost-effective use of resources consistent with family risk (institution); (3) Based on the results of the trial and feedback from the first and second aim, we will develop and disseminate a web-based PAT Implementation Toolkit. DISCUSSION: Use of the PAT across children's cancer programs nationally can achieve the assessment standard and inform equitable delivery of psychosocial care matched to family need for all patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04446728 , registered 23 June 2020.

Technology-Focused Family Interventions in Pediatric Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review provides a synthesis of randomized-controlled trials of technology-focused family interventions for children with chronic illnesses and their families, focused on describing the current state of the literature and generating recommendations for future family systems work in the field of eHealth/mHealth. Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. No identified studies featured an mHealth delivery modality. Relevant data were extracted and studies were assessed for quality. There was great variability with regard to intervention factors (e.g., format) and family-centered intervention targets. There is some evidence that eHealth interventions may lead to improvements in particular domains of family functioning (e.g., family conflict) for some groups of participants. However, mixed results and selection of numerous different intervention targets by investigators make it challenging to draw summative conclusions about the overall effectiveness of family systems eHealth interventions. Future research should move beyond feasibility/acceptability studies and examine family-centered processes as primary outcomes. Future research should also consider novel intervention formats to determine whether intervention effects are more robust for certain groups (e.g., individuals who prefer electronic intervention delivery to in-person intervention).

The multidisciplinary pediatric psycho-oncology workforce: A national report on supervision for staff and training opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents data on licensure/certification status, supervision of multidisciplinary pediatric psychosocial staff, and training opportunities in pediatric cancer programs in the United States, data that are critical to provide care aligned with the Standards of Psychosocial Care in Pediatric Cancer (Psychosocial Standards). METHODS: An online survey of psychosocial care consistent with the Psychosocial Standards was completed from a national sample of pediatric cancer programs (144/200). Licensure/certification status, availability and format of supervision for multidisciplinary staff (social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, child life specialists/recreational therapists), and types and number of psychosocial trainees were reported. RESULTS: Nearly all pediatric psychosocial providers were licensed/certified. Peer consultation was the most frequently endorsed form of staff supervision although a sizeable group of centers reported no systematic ongoing supervision. Trainees in social work and child life were most common although the size of trainee cohorts is generally small. Psychosocial trainees are more prevalent in sites with pediatric hematology/oncology medical fellowship programs and in larger programs. CONCLUSIONS: A properly trained and supported psychosocial workforce is essential to providing evidence-based care consistent with the Psychosocial Standards. Psychosocial providers are appropriately licensed. However, supervision opportunities are variable and may be inadequate for the intensity of the work. It is important to address the limited opportunities for trainees in pediatric cancer programs, which may influence the pipeline for ongoing and future work in this area.

Delivery of care consistent with the psychosocial standards in pediatric cancer: Current practices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: With published evidence-based Standards for Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and their Families, it is important to know the current status of their implementation. This paper presents data on delivery of psychosocial care related to the Standards in the United States. PROCEDURE: Pediatric oncologists, psychosocial leaders, and administrators in pediatric oncology from 144 programs completed an online survey. Participants reported on the extent to which psychosocial care consistent with the Standards was implemented and was comprehensive and state of the art. They also reported on specific practices and services for each Standard and the extent to which psychosocial care was integrated into broader medical care. RESULTS: Participants indicated that psychosocial care consistent with the Standards was usually or always provided at their center for most of the Standards. However, only half of the oncologists (55.6%) and psychosocial leaders (45.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that their psychosocial care was comprehensive and state of the art. Types of psychosocial care provided included evidence-based and less established approaches but were most often provided when problems were identified, rather than proactively. The perception of state of the art care was associated with practices indicative of integrated psychosocial care and the extent to which the Standards are currently implemented. CONCLUSION: Many oncologists and psychosocial leaders perceive that the delivery of psychosocial care at their center is consistent with the Standards. However, care is quite variable, with evidence for the value of more integrated models of psychosocial services.

Implementing the psychosocial standards in pediatric cancer: Current staffing and services available.

BACKGROUND: Fifteen evidence-based Standards for Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and Their Families (Standards) were published in 2015. The Standards cover a broad range of topics and circumstances and require qualified multidisciplinary staff to be implemented. This paper presents data on the availability of psychosocial staff and existing practices at pediatric oncology programs in the United States, providing data that can be used to advocate for expanded services and prepare for implementation of the Standards. PROCEDURE: Up to three healthcare professionals from 144 programs (72% response rate) participated in an online survey conducted June-December 2016. There were 99 pediatric oncologists with clinical leadership responsibility (Medical Director/Clinical Director), 132 psychosocial leaders in pediatric oncology (Director of Psychosocial Services/Manager/most senior staff member), and 58 administrators in pediatric oncology (Administrative Director/Business Administrator/Director of Operations). The primary outcomes were number and type of psychosocial staff, psychosocial practices, and identified challenges in the delivery of psychosocial care. RESULTS: Over 90% of programs have social workers and child life specialists who provide care to children with cancer and their families. Fewer programs have psychologists (60%), neuropsychologists (31%), or psychiatrists (19%). Challenges in psychosocial care are primarily based on pragmatic issues related to funding and reimbursement. CONCLUSION: Most participating pediatric oncology programs appear to have at least the basic level of staffing necessary to implement of some of the Standards. However, the lack of a more comprehensive multidisciplinary team is a likely barrier in the implementation of the full set of Standards.