The setting up and running of a children's activity group and learning centre for children with haematological and oncology conditions.

BACKGROUND: Children diagnosed with haematological and oncology conditions spend long periods of time undergoing treatments in hospital. Treatments are intensive and may include combinations of chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and bone marrow transplants. This often means that they have prolonged hospital stays away from family, friends and familiar environments. AIM: We aimed at starting an activity group and learning centre based in the hospital setting for children undergoing treatment for haematological and oncology conditions. METHODS: The activity group and learning centre was set up in a tertiary care hospital under the department of Paediatric Haematology, Oncology and Bone Marrow Transplantation with the support of a local NGO called 'Samiksha Foundation' in Bangalore, India. Children who participated in the programme engaged in learning through participation in the activity groups which engaged in academic and non-academic activities. The activity group and learning centre was piloted in April and May of 2019. During the pilot sessions, 156 children participated in the group. Children of all ages were welcome to attend and were given activities based on their age and learning levels. Until March 2020, the group has seen over 600 children in attendance. RESULTS: This methods report examines various aspects of the activity group such as setting up of the activity groups, how they are run, the activities conducted in the groups and the effects the group has had on children and their families as reported by them while undergoing treatment. CONCLUSION: The overall response to the activity groups was positive and widely accepted among our patient community. The intervention proved to be effective, easy to implement and relatively inexpensive. We hope that by sharing data from our centre, more paediatric units may be able to implement such groups for children.

Do Psychological Interventions Work for Psychosis in Adolescents?

BACKGROUND: There is emerging evidence to show that psychological interventions such as cognitive remediation therapy (CRT), psychoeducation, family therapy, and group psychotherapies may be useful for adolescents with psychosis. The current review is on the effects of various psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis compared with treatment as usual (TAU) or other psychological interventions. METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive search for all randomized controlled trials on the topic as per predefined criteria. For binary data, a standard estimation of risk ratio, and, for continuous data, the mean difference between groups were estimated. GRADE approach was used to assess studies. "Risk of Bias" was calculated, and finally random-effects model was used for analyses. RESULTS: The review included 7 studies (n = 317). Two studies compared CRT and TAU with TAU alone. CRT showed improvement in short-term memory compared with those in the TAU group (relative risk 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89, participants = 31, very low-certainty evidence). When comparing group psychosocial therapy with TAU, global state scores measured using Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) were clearly higher in the intervention arm (mean difference 5.10, 95% CI 1.35 to 8.85, participants = 56, very low-certainty evidence) as compared with the TAU group. None of the other interventions were found to be significantly effective for the treatment of psychosis in adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that psychological interventions may have beneficial effects in the treatment of adolescents with psychosis, but the evidence is of low or very low certainty.

Psychological interventions for psychosis in adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Psychosis is an illness characterised by alterations in thoughts and perceptions resulting in delusions and hallucinations. Psychosis is rare in adolescents but can have serious consequences. Antipsychotic medications are the mainstay treatment, and have been shown to be effective. However, there is emerging evidence on psychological interventions such as cognitive remediation therapy, psycho-education, family therapy and group psychotherapy that may be useful for adolescents with psychosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of various psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based Register of Trials including clinical trials registries (latest, 8 March 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing various psychological interventions with treatment-as-usual or other psychological treatments for adolescents with psychosis. For analyses, we included trials meeting our inclusion criteria and reporting useable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently and reliably screened studies and we assessed risk of bias of the included studies. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we used mean differences (MDs) and the 95% CIs. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The current review includes 7 studies (n = 319) assessing a heterogenous group of psychological interventions with variable risk of bias. Adverse events were not reported by any of the studies. None of the studies was sponsored by industry. Below, we summarise the main results from four of six comparisons, and the certainty of these results (based on GRADE). All scale scores are average endpoint scores. Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CRT) + Treatment-as-Usual (TAU) versus TAU Two studies compared adding CRT to participants' TAU with TAU alone. Global state (CGAS, high = good) was reported by one study. There was no clear difference between treatment groups (MD -4.90, 95% CI -11.05 to 1.25; participants = 50; studies = 1, very low-certainty). Mental state (PANSS, high = poor) was reported by one study. Scores were clearly lower in the TAU group (MD 8.30, 95% CI 0.46 to 16.14; participants = 50; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Clearly more participants in the CRT group showed improvement in cognitive functioning (Memory digit span test) compared to numbers showing improvement in the TAU group (1 study, n = 31, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89; very low-certainty). For global functioning (VABS, high = good), our analysis of reported scores showed no clear difference between treatment groups (MD 5.90, 95% CI -3.03 to 14.83; participants = 50; studies = 1; very low-certainty). The number of participants leaving the study early from each group was similar (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.71; participants = 91; studies = 2; low-certainty). Group Psychosocial Therapy (GPT) + TAU versus TAU One study assessed the effects of adding GPT to participants' usual medication. Global state scores (CGAS, high = good) were clearly higher in the GPT group (MD 5.10, 95% CI 1.35 to 8.85; participants = 56; studies = 1; very low-certainty) but there was little or no clear difference between groups for mental state scores (PANSS, high = poor, MD -4.10, 95% CI -8.28 to 0.08; participants = 56; studies = 1, very low-certainty) and no clear difference between groups for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; participants = 56; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Cognitive Remediation Programme (CRP) + Psychoeducational Treatment Programme (PTP) versus PTP One study assessed the effects of combining two types psychological interventions (CRP + PTP) with PTP alone. Global state scores (GAS, high = good) were not clearly different (MD 1.60, 95% CI -6.48 to 9.68; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-certainty), as were mental state scores (BPRS total, high = poor, MD -5.40, 95% CI -16.42 to 5.62; participants = 24; studies = 1; very low-certainty), and cognitive functioning scores (SPAN-12, high = good, MD 2.40, 95% CI -2.67 to 7.47; participants = 25; studies = 1; very low-certainty). Psychoeducational (PE) + Multifamily Treatment (MFT) Versus Nonstructured Group Therapy (NSGT, all long-term) One study compared (PE + MFT) with NSGT. Analysis of reported global state scores (CGAS, high = good, MD 3.38, 95% CI -4.87 to 11.63; participants = 49; studies = 1; very low-certainty) and mental state scores (PANSS total, high = poor, MD -8.23, 95% CI -17.51 to 1.05; participants = 49; studies = 1; very low-certainty) showed no clear differences. The number of participants needing hospital admission (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.96; participants = 49; studies = 1) and the number of participants leaving the study early from each group were also similar (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.60; participants = 55; studies = 1; low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of our estimates of effect for our main outcomes are equivocal. An effect is suggested for only four outcomes in the SOF tables presented. Compared to TAU, CRT may have a positive effect on cognitive functioning, however the same study reports data suggesting TAU may have positive effect on mental state. Another study comparing GPT with TAU reports data suggesting GPT may have a positive effect on global state. However, the estimate of effects for all the main outcomes in our review should be viewed with considerable caution as they are based on data from a small number of studies with variable risk of bias. Further data could change these results and larger and better quality studies are needed before any firm conclusions regarding the effects of psychological interventions for adolescents with psychosis can be made.

How do clinicians rate patient's performance status using the ECOG performance scale? A mixed-methods exploration of variability in decision-making in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Medical decisions made by oncology clinicians have serious implications, even when made collaboratively with the patient. Clinicians often use the Eastern Clinical Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) scores to help them make treatment-related decisions. METHODS: The current study explores the variability of the ECOG score when applied to 12 predetermined specially designed clinical case vignettes presented to a group of oncology clinicians (n = 72). The quantitative analysis included evaluation of variability of ECOG PS scores and exploration of rater and patient-related factors which may influence the final ECOG rating. In-depth interviews were conducted with oncology clinicians to ascertain factors that they felt were important while making treatment-related decisions. Basic and global themes were generated following qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative results showed that there was poor agreement in ECOG rating between raters. Overall concordance with the gold standard rating ranged between 19.4% and 56.9% for the vignettes. Moreover, patients deemed to have socially desirable qualities (p < 0.004) were rated to have better PS and women patients (p < 0.004) to have worse PS. Clinicians having international work experience had increased concordance with ECOG PS rating. Qualitative results showed that 'perceived socio-economic background of the patient', 'age of the patient', 'patient's and family's preferences' and 'past treatment response' were the major themes highlighted by respondents that influenced the treatment-related decisions made by clinicians. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variability in ECOG PS determined by clinicians. Decision-making in oncology is complex, multifactorial and is influenced by rater and patient-related factors.

What do you need to learn in paediatric psycho-oncology?

Paediatric psycho-oncology is an evolving speciality and is increasingly being recognised as an essential component in children's cancer care. Modern paediatric oncology services aspire to integrate physical care with psycho-social care and build capacity within clinical teams to address the emotional needs of parents and children side by side with other aspects of medical care. This article discusses the unique challenges of paediatric psycho-oncology and common situations where psychological assessment and management of children and young people with cancer become especially important. The authors propose a tiered structure of training. Providing empathic evidence-based psycho-social care is 'everyone's business' in paediatric oncology and not merely that of mental health professionals. However, there are times when a more specialist intervention by a paediatric liaison psychiatrist and/or a clinical psychologist is needed for optimum outcome. Learning interviewing techniques suitable for children and adolescents should be a core part of the training in paediatric psycho-oncology. Professionals should be encouraged to reflect on their own emotional wellbeing, which in turn will provide a stable foundation of emotionally matured care to children, young people and their families.