Determining the cost and cost-effectiveness of childhood cancer treatment in Haiti.

Haiti is a low-income country with one of the lowest human development index rankings in the world. Its childhood cancer services are provided by a single hospital with the only dedicated paediatric oncology department in the country. Our objective was to assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of all types of childhood cancer in Haiti to help prioritise investments and to support national cancer control planning. All costing data were collected from the year 2017 or 2018 hospital records. Costs were classified into 11 cost categories, and the proportion of the overall budget represented by each was calculated and converted from Haitian Gourde to United States dollars. The 5-year survival rate was retrieved from hospital records and used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, using a healthcare costing perspective. Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted accounting for late-effect morbidity and early mortality and discounting rates of 0%, 3% and 6%. The annual cost of operating a paediatric oncology unit in Haiti treating 74 patients with newly diagnosed cancer was $803,184 overall or $10,854 per patient. The largest cost category was pharmacy, constituting 25% of the overall budget, followed by medical personnel (20%) and administration (12%). The cost per DALY averted in the base-case scenario was $1,128, which is 76% of the gross domestic product per capita, demonstrating that treating children with cancer in Haiti is very cost-effective according to the World Health Organisation Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) threshold. In the most conservative scenario, the cost per DALY averted was cost-effective by WHO-CHOICE criteria. Our data will add to the growing body of literature illustrating a positive return on investment associated with diagnosing and treating children with cancer in even the most resource-limited environments. We anticipate that these data will aid local stakeholders and policymakers when identifying cancer control priorities and making budgetary decisions.

Children's understanding of dying and death: A multinational grounded theory study.

OBJECTIVES: The ways in which children understand dying and death remain poorly understood; most studies have been carried out with samples other than persons with an illness. The objective of this study was to understand the process by which children directly involved with life-limiting conditions understand dying and death. METHODS: This qualitative study obtained interview data from N = 44 5-18-year-old children in the USA, Haiti, and Uganda who were pediatric palliative care patients or siblings of patients. Of these, 32 were children with a serious condition and 12 were siblings of a child with a serious condition. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, verified, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Loss of normalcy and of relationships emerged as central themes described by both ill children and siblings. Resilience, altruism, and spirituality had a bidirectional relationship with loss, being strategies to manage both losses and anticipated death, but also being affected by losses. Resiliency and spirituality, but not altruism, had a bidirectional relationship with anticipating death. Themes were consistent across the 3 samples, although the beliefs and behaviors expressing them varied by country. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study partially fills an identified gap in research knowledge about ways in which children in 3 nations understand dying and death. While children often lack an adult vocabulary to express thoughts about dying and death, results show that they are thinking about these topics. A proactive approach to address issues is warranted, and the data identify themes of concern to children.

Communication transforms the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic altered healthcare systems globally, causing delays in care delivery and increased anxiety among patients and families. This study examined how hospital stakeholders and clinicians perceived the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families. METHODS: This secondary analysis examined data from a qualitative study consisting of 19 focus groups conducted in 8 languages throughout 16 countries. A codebook was developed with novel codes derived inductively from transcript review. In-depth analysis focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families. RESULTS: Eight themes describing the impact of the pandemic on patients and their families were identified and classified into three domains: contributing factors (COVID-19 Policies, Cancer Treatment Modifications, COVID-19 Symptoms, Beliefs), patient-related impacts (Quality of Care, Psychosocial impacts, Treatment Reluctance), and the central transformer (Communication). Participants described the ability of communication to transform the effect of contributing factors on patient-related impacts. The valence of impacts depended on the quality and quantity of communication among clinicians and between clinicians and patients and families. CONCLUSIONS: Communication served as the central factor impacting whether the COVID-19 pandemic positively or negatively affected children with cancer and families. These findings emphasize the key role communication plays in delivering patient-centered care and can guide future development of communication-centered interventions globally.

Interdisciplinary care of pediatric oncology patients: A survey of clinicians in Central America and the Caribbean.

BACKGROUND: Quality cancer care depends on interdisciplinary communication. This study explored the communication practices of interdisciplinary clinicians, the types of healthcare services for which they engage in interdisciplinary collaboration, and the association between interdisciplinary care and perceived quality of care, as well as job satisfaction. METHODS: We conducted a survey of interdisciplinary clinicians from cancer centers in Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, and Haiti. The survey included 68 items including previously validated tools and novel questions. RESULTS: Total 174 interdisciplinary clinicians completed the survey: nurses (n = 60), medical subspecialists (n = 35), oncologists (n = 22), psychosocial providers (n = 20), surgeons (n = 12), pathologists (n = 9), radiologists (n = 9), and radiation oncologists (n = 5). Oncologists reported daily communication with nurses (95%) and other oncologists (91%). While 90% of nurses reported daily communication with other nurses, only 66% reported daily communication with oncologists, and more than 50% of nurses reported never talking to pathologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, or surgeons. Most clinicians described interdisciplinary establishment of cancer treatment goals and prognosis (84%), patient preferences (81%), and determination of first treatment modality (80%). Clinicians who described more interdisciplinary collaboration had higher job satisfaction (p = .04) and perceived a higher level of overall quality of care (p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in these limited resource settings describe strong interdisciplinary collaboration contributing to higher job satisfaction and perceived quality of care. However, nurses in these settings reported more limited interdisciplinary communication and care. Additional studies are necessary to further define clinical roles on interdisciplinary care teams and their associations with patient outcomes.

Resilient health care in global pediatric oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In the face of unprecedented challenges because of coronavirus disease 2019, interdisciplinary pediatric oncology teams have developed strategies to continue providing high-quality cancer care. This study explored factors contributing to health care resilience as perceived by childhood cancer providers in all resource level settings. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of 19 focus groups conducted in 16 countries in 8 languages. Seven factors have been previously defined as important for resilient health care including: 1) in situ practical experience, 2) system design, 3) exposure to diverse views on the patient's situation, 4) protocols and checklists, 5) teamwork, 6) workarounds, and 7) trade-offs. Rapid turn-around analysis focused on these factors. RESULTS: All factors of health care resilience were relevant to groups representing all resource settings. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of teamwork and a flexible and coordinated approach to care. Participants described collaboration within and among institutions, as well as partnerships with governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations. Hierarchies were advantageous to decision-making and information dissemination. Clinicians were inspired by their patients and explained creative trade-offs and workarounds used to maintain high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Factors previously described as contributing to resilient health care manifested differently in each institution but were described in all resource settings. These insights can guide pediatric oncology teams worldwide as they provide cancer care during the next phases of the pandemic. Understanding these elements of resilience will also help providers respond to inevitable future stressors on health care systems.

Interdisciplinary care of pediatric oncology patients in Central America and the Caribbean.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary teamwork supports high-quality cancer care and effective utilization of limited resources. This study purposed to examine the value, structure, process, and effectiveness of interdisciplinary care (IDC) among pediatric oncology providers in low-income and middle-income countries in Central America and the Caribbean. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated to pediatric oncology providers at 5 centers participating in the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Association of Central America. The survey included previously validated items and novel questions assessing the value (importance), structure (multidisciplinary meeting attendance), process (team climate), and effectiveness (job satisfaction, quality of care and communication) of IDC. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 174 providers, including 22 oncologists, 9 pathologists, 9 radiologists, 5 radiation oncologists, 12 surgeons, 35 subspecialists, 60 nurses, 20 psychosocial providers, and 2 other staff. Participants agreed that IDC benefits team members (95%) and patients (96%). IDC structure and processes varied across the region. Multidisciplinary meeting attendance differed by center (P = .005) and discipline (P < .0001). Participants who frequently attended multidisciplinary meetings reported a more positive team climate (P = .0003). Team climate was positively associated with job satisfaction (P < .001). In multivariable analyses, team climate was predictive of an improved perception of communication between professionals (P < .0001), with families (P < .0001), and with patients (P = .0005), as well as with quality of the care environment (P = .006) and overall care quality (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all surveyed participants valued IDC, and the structure and processes supporting IDC varied by center. Associations between a collaborative professional climate, job satisfaction, and the perception of quality care encourage continued investigation and prioritization of IDC in these settings.