Factors influencing parents' choice of palliative treatment goals for children with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: A multi-site longitudinal survey study.

BACKGROUND: Many parents of children with advanced cancer report curative goals and continue intensive therapies that can compound symptoms and suffering. Factors that influence parents to choose palliation as the primary treatment goal are not well understood. The objective of this study was to examine experiences impacting parents' report of palliative goals adjusted for time. The authors hypothesized that awareness of poor prognosis, recall of oncologists' prognostic disclosure, intensive treatments, and burdensome symptoms and suffering would influence palliative goal-setting. METHODS: The authors collected prospective, longitudinal surveys from parents of children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma at nine pediatric cancer centers across the United States, beginning at relapse and continuing every 3 months for 18 months or until death. Hypothesized covariates were examined for possible associations with parental report of palliative goals. Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate factors associated with parents' report of palliative goals at different time points. RESULTS: A total of 96 parents completed surveys. Parents were more likely to report a primary goal of palliation when they recalled communication about prognosis by their child's oncologist (odds ratio [OR], 52.48; p = .010). Treatment intensity and previous ineffective therapeutic regimens were not associated with parents' report of palliative goals adjusted for time. A parent who reported new suffering for their child was less likely to report palliative goals (OR, 0.13; p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Parents of children with poor prognosis cancer may not report palliative goals spontaneously in the setting of treatment-related suffering. Prognostic communication, however, does influence palliative goal-setting. Evidence-based interventions are needed to encourage timely, person-centered prognostic disclosure in the setting of advanced pediatric cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Many parents of children with poor-prognosis cancer continue to pursue curative treatments that may worsen symptoms and suffering. Little is known about which factors influence parents to choose palliative care as their child's main treatment goal. To explore this question, we asked parents of children with advanced neuroblastoma across the United States to complete multiple surveys over time. We found that the intensity of treatment, number of treatments, and suffering from treatment did not influence parents to choose palliative goals. However, when parents remembered their child's oncologist talking about prognosis, they were more likely to choose palliative goals of care.

Storytelling to support legacy making for bereaved parents of children with cancer.

Honoring a child's legacy is an essential aspect of meaning-making for bereaved parents, yet little is known about storytelling as a mechanism. Through narrative analysis of 19 bereaved parent interviews focused on legacy, we examined the role of storytelling in creating and sustaining legacy. Most participants (89%) told stories centered around the child's impact and parent's coping, including the child's character and interpersonal relationships during and after their lifetime as well as how the child's legacy influenced parents' grief experiences. Future research is needed to explore the potential impact of storytelling initiatives to support legacy-making for bereaved caregivers.

Access to legacy-oriented interventions at end of life for pediatric oncology patients: A decedent cohort review.

BACKGROUND: Legacy-oriented interventions have the potential to offer pediatric oncology patients and families comfort at end of life and during bereavement. Certified child life specialists often provide these services, and presently little is known about whether disparities exist in the provision of legacy-oriented interventions. METHODS: In this retrospective decedent cohort study, we examined demographic and clinical characteristics from a sample of 678 pediatric oncology patients who died between 2015 and 2019. Bivariate analysis assessed differences between patients who received any versus no legacy-oriented intervention. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations of baseline characteristics and likelihood of receiving legacy-oriented intervention. Further multivariable analysis explored joint effects of significant variables identified in the univariable analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of patients received a legacy-oriented intervention. Older adolescents (≥13 years) were less likely (odds ratio [OR]: 1.73, p = .007) to receive legacy-oriented interventions than younger ones. Patients with home/hospice deaths were also less likely (OR: 19.98, p < .001) to receive interventions compared to patients who passed away at SJCRH locations. Hispanic patients (OR: 1.53, p = .038) and those in palliative care (OR: 10.51, p < .001) were more likely to receive interventions. No significant race association was noted. CONCLUSION: All children and adolescents with cancer deserve quality care at end of life, including access to legacy-oriented interventions, yet nearly half of patients in this cohort did not receive these services. By identifying demographic and clinical characteristics associated with decreased odds of receiving legacy-oriented interventions, healthcare professionals can modify end-of-life care processes to improve access. Introducing legacy-oriented interventions early and increasing exposure in community spaces may enhance access to legacy-oriented interventions for pediatric oncology patients.

Parent and oncologist perspectives on prognostic disclosure in advanced childhood cancer: communication pearls and pitfalls.

PURPOSE: For children with advanced cancer and their families, communication about prognosis is critical. Unfortunately, data demonstrate that prognostic communication occurs infrequently and inconsistently across advancing illness. Prior to developing an intervention to improve prognostic communication, we aimed to (1) characterize parent and oncologist perspectives on "best" approaches for prognostic communication, and (2) explore similarities and differences between parent and oncologist perspectives. METHODS: Children with poor-prognosis solid tumors, their parents, and oncologists were followed prospectively for 24 months or until death. Matched semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents and oncologists 0-7 days after medical encounters at timepoints of disease progression or relapse. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted to describe parent and oncologist impressions of communication quality. RESULTS: A total of 68 interviews were conducted following serial disease reevaluation encounters involving 13 parents and five oncologists. Nine main themes were identified as "best" approaches: (1) speaking with honesty and clarity, (2) leaving room for hope, (3) leaning into a long-standing relationship, (4) personalizing language, (5) empowering the patient and family, (6) collaborating with the multidisciplinary team, (7) providing anticipatory guidance, (8) setting the scene, and (9) creating a therapeutic space. Parents and oncologists generally agreed on themes related to helpful communication approaches, while parents more explicitly described communication pitfalls. CONCLUSION: Parents and oncologists described clear recommendations for helpful communication strategies and pitfalls to avoid during difficult prognostic disclosure. Future work should integrate patient perspectives in the design and testing of an intervention to improve prognostic communication in advanced childhood cancer.

Narrative medicine interventions for oncology clinicians: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: As narrative medicine interventions are integrated increasingly into medical practice, growing evidence indicates benefits for healthcare professionals. Presently, the prevalence and impact of narrative medicine interventions in the field of oncology remain unknown. This systematic review synthesizes published data on narrative medicine interventions in oncology and reports current knowledge on feasibility, acceptability, and impact on cancer care professionals. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception through February 2024. Eligible articles were published in English and contained original data on feasibility, acceptability, and/or impact of a narrative medicine intervention for oncology professionals. Database searches identified 2614 deduplicated articles, from which 50 articles were identified for full-text assessment and 11 articles met inclusion criteria. Two additional articles were identified through manual review of references. RESULTS: Thirteen articles described 12 unique narrative medicine interventions targeting cancer care professionals. All studies described their respective interventions as feasible, acceptable, and impactful for participants. Interventions involved writing, reading, reflection, and other narrative-based strategies. Standardized validated tools evaluated outcomes including burnout, empathy expression, secondary trauma, quality of humanistic care, and well-being. Participants reported appreciation of opportunities for reflection, perspective sharing, and bearing witness, which they perceived to strengthen wellness and community. CONCLUSION: Narrative medicine interventions are feasible and acceptable and may bolster oncology clinicians' functioning across domains. Multi-site, prospective, randomized studies are needed to investigate the broader impact of narrative medicine interventions and advance the science of narrative medicine in oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: CRD42022369432.

Exploring treatment decision-making at diagnosis for children with advanced cancer in low- and middle-income countries.

PURPOSE: Global childhood cancer survival outcomes correlate with regional contextual factors, yet upfront treatment decision-making for children with advanced or poor prognosis cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is not well understood. This study aimed to (1) characterize the landscape of contextual factors that shape physician decision-making at diagnosis for these children in LMICs and (2) describe physician rationales for if/when to offer treatment with non-curative intent, including how they define "poor prognosis" during treatment decision-making. METHODS: An international panel of pediatric oncologists practicing in LMICs participated in two focus groups structured for the collaborative generation of factors influencing treatment decision-making, including consideration of non-curative treatment pathways at diagnosis. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was conducted, followed by member checking. RESULTS: Eleven pediatric oncologists participated, representing all global regions defined by the World Health Organization. Participants identified a broad range of factors influencing decision-making across multiple levels, including the individual, hospital, health system, community, and country levels. All participants agreed that treatment with non-curative intent could be offered at diagnosis in certain contexts, and diverse definitions for poor prognosis were described. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront treatment decision-making for children with advanced or poor prognosis cancer in LMICs is variable and challenging. Difficulties with decision-making in LMICs may be amplified by inconsistent definitions of poor prognosis and underrepresentation of the factors that influence treatment decision-making within existing decision-making frameworks or childhood cancer treatment guidelines. Future research should explore decision-making approaches, preferences, and challenges in depth from the perspectives of pediatric cancer patients, families, and multidisciplinary clinicians.

"Understanding why she had to leave me": The roles of religion and spirituality in narratives of parents grieving the loss of a child to cancer.

Religion and spirituality often influence how people experience illness, death, and grief. The roles of religion and spirituality for parents who have lost a child to cancer remain underexplored. This study aimed to describe how cancer-bereaved parents talk about religion and spirituality when reflecting on their experiences. Participants whose children died of cancer one to six years prior to participation completed a one-on-one semi-structured interview. Interview transcripts underwent qualitative analysis. Content pertaining to religion and/or spirituality underwent subsequent in-depth analysis to identify themes. Of 30 interviews analyzed, 28 contained religion/spirituality content. Four themes arose: (1) life after death, (2) divine control, (3) evolution of faith after loss, and (4) religious and spiritual interactions within the medical community. The absence of supports for religious and spiritual needs represents a gap in bereavement care. Future work should clarify needs and explore potential interventions.

Supporting Disclosure of Unmet Mental Health Needs among Parents of Critically Ill Infants.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize (1) the prevalence of mental health discussion and (2) facilitators of and barriers to parent disclosure of mental health needs to clinicians. STUDY DESIGN: Parents of infants with neurologic conditions in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units participated in a longitudinal decision-making study from 2018 through 2020. Parents completed semi-structured interviews upon enrollment, within 1 week after a conference with providers, at discharge, and 6 months post-discharge. We used a conventional content analysis approach and NVIVO 12 to analyze data related to mental health. RESULTS: We enrolled 61 parents (n = 40 mothers, n = 21 fathers) of 40 infants with neurologic conditions in the intensive care unit. In total, 123 interviews were conducted with 52 of these parents (n = 37 mothers, n = 15 fathers). Over two-thirds of parents (n = 35/52, 67%) discussed their mental health in a total of 61 interviews. We identified two key domains when approaching the data through the lens of mental health: (1) self-reported barriers to communicating mental health needs: parents shared uncertainty about the presence or benefit of support, a perceived lack of mental health resources and emotional support, and concerns about trust; (2) self-reported facilitators and benefits of communicating mental health needs: parents described the value of supportive team members, connecting to peer support, and speaking to a mental health professional or neutral third party. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of critically ill infants are at high risk of unmet mental health needs. Our results highlight modifiable barriers and actionable facilitators to inform interventions to improve mental health support for parents of critically ill infants.

Prognostic Discussion for Infants with Neurologic Conditions: Qualitative Analysis of Family Conferences.

OBJECTIVE: We characterize the content and role of prognostic discussion for infants with neurologic conditions. METHODS: In this descriptive qualitative study, we prospectively enrolled infants (age < 1 year) in the intensive care unit with a neurologic condition anticipated to have ≥1 family conference about prognosis or goals of care. We audiorecorded family conferences as they occurred. We used a rapid-cycle qualitative approach to identify and refine themes. RESULTS: Forty infants and 61 parents were enrolled; 68 family conferences occurred for 24 infants. The majority of infant cases (n = 23/24, 96%) and conferences (n = 64/68, 94%) included discussion of neurologic prognosis. Common infant diagnoses included prematurity (n = 12, 52%), genetic conditions (n = 9, 35%), and brain malformations (n = 7, 30%). We identified 2 themes relating to the characterization of the infant's prognosis: (1) predictions of impairment and (2) rationale for prognostic predictions. We identified 3 themes characterizing the role of prognostic discussion: (1) aligning parent and clinician understanding of infant outcome, (2) influencing decision-making, and (3) preparing for life at home. We identified 2 themes characterizing discussion of prognostic uncertainty: (1) multilayered types of uncertainty and (2) holding space for hope alongside uncertainty. INTERPRETATION: In this cohort of infants with neurologic conditions and their parents, we identified salient themes characterizing the content and role of discussion about neurologic outcome. Our findings highlight that prognostic discussion focuses on anticipated impairments, informs decision-making, and helps families prepare for home life. Future work should characterize whether these findings align with parent preferences for prognostic disclosure. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:699-709.

Navigating prognostic communication when children with poor-prognosis cancer experience prolonged disease stability.

BACKGROUND: Most pediatric patients and families want clear prognostic information across the illness course. Yet when children with poor-prognosis cancer experience prolonged disease stability, uncertainty can make communication particularly challenging. In this study, we aimed to (i) assess how frequently oncologists communicate about prognosis when high-risk cancer does not progress, and (ii) describe prognostic communication patterns in the context of disease stability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, mixed-methods study, we audio-recorded serial disease re-evaluation conversations between children with poor-prognosis cancer, their families, and their primary oncologists. For this secondary analysis, we conducted content analysis across serial conversations among 16 patient-parent-oncologist triads for whom the patient's disease remained stable over the 24-month study period. RESULTS: Prognostic communication was absent in >50% of recorded conversations. Overall, it comprised only 4% of dialog time, nearly 90% of which was dialog about prognostic uncertainty; discussion of curability occurred infrequently. Three distinct patterns for prognostic communication emerged: (a) "Don't know" statements, avoiding or deferring prognostication; (b) "Worry" statements, preparing families for possible future disease progression; and (c) relief-caveat statements, celebrating disease stability while balancing positivity with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists seldom talked about prognosis with high-risk patients during periods of disease stability; yet when they did, they used thoughtful and effective strategies to prepare families for possible future disease progression. Further research is needed to better understand if, how, and when patients and families with stable disease who are high risk for future disease progression prefer to receive information about prognosis.

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.

Medical experts and trusted confidants: parent perceptions of the clinician-parent relationship in childhood cancer.

PURPOSE: A childhood cancer diagnosis threatens the health, safety, and security of the child and whole family unit. A strong relationship between the healthcare team and family is integral to provision of holistic support during this time of crisis. Family-centered care necessitates a fluid, therapeutic relationship between parents and the child's healthcare team. This study investigated bereaved parents' perspectives on their relationship with their child's care team and the impact of these relationships on their coping across the cancer trajectory and into bereavement. METHODS: Thirty-one parents whose child died from cancer between 1 and 6 years prior to study enrollment participated in semi-structured interviews about their relationships and interactions with their child's healthcare team across the illness course and into bereavement. We audio-recorded interviews, transcribed them verbatim, and utilized a codebook thematic analysis approach to analyze interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four themes emerged across interviews with parents describing their perceptions of the parent-clinician relationship: (1) a collaborative approach improves perceptions of care, (2) professional trust is core to the relationship, (3) parental personal preference and bias can limit relationship-building, and (4) meaningful connections form on an emotional, individualized level. These themes highlight relational patterns between parents and clinicians that can promote or erode alliance and collaboration. CONCLUSION: Bereaved parents recognize key attributes that influence the parent-clinician relationship. Educating clinicians about parent-identified positive modifiable behaviors (e.g., communication deficits) and awareness of non-modifiable care factors (e.g., individual personality preferences) may enable clinicians to strengthen relationships with parents and ultimately improve quality of care.

Publicly available information about fertility benefits for trainees at medical schools in the US.

PURPOSE: Infertility affects one in four female physicians, yet current availability of fertility benefits within Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited residency programs in the United States (US) is unknown. Our objective was to examine publicly available fertility benefits information for residents and fellows. METHODS: The top 50 medical schools in the US for research were identified using US News & World Report 2022. In April 2022, we reviewed fertility benefits available to residents and fellows at these medical schools. Websites of their associated graduate medical education (GME) websites were queried for details surrounding fertility benefits. Two investigators collected data from GME and publicly available institutional websites. The primary outcome was fertility coverage and rates are reported as percentages. RESULTS: Within the top 50 medical schools, 66% of institutional websites included publicly available medical benefits, 40% included any mention of fertility benefits, and 32% had no explicit information on fertility or medical benefits. Fertility benefit coverage included infertility diagnostic workup (40%), intrauterine insemination (32%), prescription coverage (12%), and in vitro fertilization (IVF, 30%). No information on coverage for third party reproduction or LGBT family building was available on public websites. Most programs with fertility benefits were in the South (40%) or Midwest (30%). CONCLUSION: To support the reproductive autonomy of physicians in training, it is critical to ensure access to information on fertility care coverage. Given the prevalence of infertility among physicians and the impact of medical training on family planning goals, more programs should offer and publicize coverage for fertility care.

Global caregiver concerns of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in children with cancer: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study.

The objective of this study was to understand global caregiver concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children with cancer and to provide healthcare providers with guidance to support parental decision-making. A co-designed cross-sectional mixed-methods survey was distributed to primary caregivers of children with cancer globally between April and May 2021 via several media. Caregivers were asked to rate the importance of vaccine-related questions and the median scores were ranked. Principal Component Analysis was conducted to identify underlying dimensions of caregiver concerns by World Bank income groups. Content analysis of free-text responses was conducted and triangulated with the quantitative findings. 627 caregivers from 22 countries responded to the survey with 5.3% (n = 67) responses from low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). 184 caregivers (29%) provided free-text responses. Side effects and vaccine safety were caregivers' primary concerns in all countries. Questions related to logistics were of concern for caregivers in LMIC. A small minority of caregivers (n = 17) did not consider the survey questions important; free-text analysis identified these parents as vaccine hesitant, some of them quoting safety and side effects as main reasons for hesitancy. Healthcare providers and other community organizations globally need to provide tailored information about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pediatric oncology settings. Importantly, continued efforts are imperative to reduce global inequities in logistical access to vaccines, particularly in LMIC.

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.

Oncologist approaches to communicating uncertain disease status in pediatric cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with cancer and their caregivers desire honest, clear prognostic communication, yet oncologists often disclose prognosis inconsistently. Prognostic communication becomes even more challenging when disease progression is unclear or equivocal. Presently, oncologist approaches for discussing uncertain disease findings are poorly understood. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal study, we audio-recorded serial disease reevaluation conversations between children with high-risk cancer, their families, and their primary oncologists over 24 months and conducted content analysis at recorded timepoints when oncologists categorized disease progression as equivocal. RESULTS: Of the 265 medical discussions recorded across the illness course for 33 patient-parent dyads, a total of 40 recorded discussions took place at equivocal timepoints, comprising > 500 min of medical dialogue. Prognosis talk encompassed < 3% of dialogue and was absent in nearly half of equivocal discussions (17/40, 42.5%). Curability statements were identified in only two conversations. Inductive content analysis of dialogue revealed four distinct patterns for communicating equivocal disease status: (1) up-front reassurance, (2) softening the message, (3) describing possible disease progression without interpretation, (4) expressing uncertainty without discussing the bigger picture. CONCLUSION: Oncologists rarely discuss prognosis with children with high-risk cancer and their families at timepoints when disease progression is not definitive. Formal guidance is needed to better support oncologists in navigating uncertainty while sharing honest, person- and family-centered information about prognosis.

Pediatric palliative care in the community.

Early integration of pediatric palliative care (PPC) for children with life-threatening conditions and their families enhances the provision of holistic care, addressing psychological, social, spiritual, and physical concerns, without precluding treatment with the goal of cure. PPC involvement ideally extends throughout the illness trajectory to improve continuity of care for patients and families. Although current PPC models focus primarily on the hospital setting, community-based PPC (CBPPC) programs are increasingly integral to the coordination, continuity, and provision of quality care. In this review, the authors examine the purpose, design, and infrastructure of CBPPC in the United States, highlighting eligibility criteria, optimal referral models to enhance early involvement, and fundamental tenets of CBPPC. This article also appraises the role of CBPPC in promoting family-centered care. This model strives to enhance shared decision making, facilitate seamless handoffs of care, maintain desired locations of care, and ease the end of life for children who die at home. The effect of legislation on the advent and evolution of CBPPC also is discussed, as is an assessment of the current status of state-specific CBPPC programs and barriers to implementation of CBPPC. Finally, strategies and resources for designing, implementing, and maintaining quality standards in CBPPC programs are reviewed.

Co-management of communication and care in adolescent and young adult oncology.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians have an ethical and practical imperative to engage adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer in communication and care. Many young AYAs have involved parents, but guidelines for co-management of care with AYAs and their parents are lacking. METHODS: We performed 37 semistructured interviews with AYAs aged 12-24 years at diagnosis, recruiting them from two pediatric cancer centers. We performed thematic analysis, aiming to understand how AYAs and their parents navigate their roles in communication and care. RESULTS: We identified six roles that AYAs co-managed with their parents: (1) managing information, (2) managing social and emotional needs, (3) managing health, (4) advocating and empowering, (5) making decisions, and (6) managing logistics. AYAs tended to take more active roles in managing information and more passive roles in managing logistics, managing health, and making decisions. AYAs described how they and their parents had mutual responsibilities to be strong and to protect other's emotions. Additionally, we identified five factors that influenced AYAs' roles in communication and care: (1) AYA agency, (2) clinician encouragement, (3) emotional and physical well-being, (4) personality, preferences, and values, and (5) insights and skills. CONCLUSIONS: AYAs have nuanced preferences for how they are involved in communication and care roles. Clinicians can help families to clarify their preferences and values around these roles in a way that meets each family's unique needs. Future studies should aim to develop tools that support the fulfillment of these engagement goals.

Approaches for Discussing Clinical Trials with Pediatric Oncology Patients and Their Families.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This manuscript aims to describe evidence-based best practices to guide clinicians in communicating with pediatric patients and their families about clinical trial enrollment. RECENT FINDINGS: The standard paradigm for discussing clinical trial enrollment with pediatric oncology patients and their families inconsistently enables or facilitates true informed consent. Evidence exists to suggest that adopting a shared decision-making approach may improve patient and family understanding. When navigating communication about clinical trials, clinicians should integrate the following evidence-based communication approaches: (1) extend dialogue about clinical trial enrollment across multiple conversations, allowing families space and time to process information independently; (2) use core communication skills such as avoiding jargon, checking for understanding, and responding to emotion. Clinicians should consider factors at the individual, team, organizational, community, and policy levels that may impact clinical trial communication with pediatric cancer patients and their families. This article reviews learnable skills that clinicians can master to optimize communication about clinical trial enrollment with pediatric cancer patients and their families.

Multilevel barriers to communication in pediatric oncology: Clinicians' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Communication serves several functions in pediatric oncology, but communication deficiencies persist. Little is known about the broad spectrum of barriers contributing to these deficiencies. Identifying these barriers will support new strategies to improve communication. METHODS: The authors performed 10 focus groups on perceived communication barriers with nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians, and psychosocial professionals across 2 academic institutions. They analyzed transcripts by adapting a multilevel framework from organizational psychology. RESULTS: The authors identified 6 levels of barriers to communication from the clinicians' perspectives: individual, team, organization, collaborating hospital, community, and policy. Individual barriers were subdivided into clinician characteristics, family characteristics, or characteristics of the clinician-family interaction. Within each level and sublevel, several manifestations of barriers were identified. Some barriers, such as a lack of comfort with difficult topics (individual), cultural differences (individual), a lack of a shared team mental model (team), and time pressure (organization), manifested similarly across professions and institutions. Other barriers, such as a need for boundaries (individual), intimidation or embarrassment of family (individual), unclear roles and authority (team), and excessive logistical requirements (policy), manifested differently across professions. With the exception of collaborating hospitals, participants from all professions identified barriers from each level. Physicians did not discuss collaborating hospital barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians, and psychosocial professionals experience communication barriers at multiple levels, which range from individual- to policy-level barriers. Yet their unique clinical roles and duties can lead to different manifestations of some barriers. This multilevel framework might help clinicians and researchers to identify targets for interventions to improve communication experiences for families in pediatric oncology. LAY SUMMARY: Clinicians and families experience many barriers to communication in pediatric oncology. The authors performed 10 focus groups with 59 clinicians who cared for children with cancer. In these focus groups, barriers to effective communication were discussed. In this article, the authors report on an analysis of the responses. Six levels of barriers to communication were found: individual, team, organization, collaborating hospital, community, and policy. With an understanding of these barriers, interventions can be developed to target these barriers in hopes of improving communication for parents and patients in pediatric oncology.