Dataset Information

Supportive care and osteopathic medicine in pediatric oncology: perspectives of current oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

Many children receiving chemotherapy struggle with therapy-induced side effects. To date, there has been no literature investigating the needs, knowledge, or implementation of osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT) as a supportive care option in pediatric oncology. We hypothesized that pediatric oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients have (a) limited knowledge of OMT and (b) dissatisfaction with current supportive care options and (c) would be interested in having OMT available during chemotherapy, once educated.

Methods

Participants included three cohorts: (1) children aged ??9 years, diagnosed with cancer and actively receiving chemotherapy; (2) their caregivers; and (3) oncology clinicians at Nationwide Children's Hospital. Participants completed 1:1 semi-structured interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content regarding their perception of supportive care measures and views on OMT. Quantitative data was summarized descriptively.

Results

A total of 60 participants completed the interview. Participants demonstrated limited awareness of osteopathic medicine; no participant had more than "some" knowledge of OMT. After education about OMT using a brief video, all clinicians, caregivers, and 95% of patients were receptive to OMT as a supportive care option. Major themes included the following: (a) patients have uncontrolled chemotherapy side effects, (b) improved supportive care options are desired, and (c) osteopathic medicine is a favorable supportive care adjunct.

Conclusions

Pediatric oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients reported a need for better management of chemotherapy-associated side effects and an interest in utilizing OMT. These findings support further investigation into the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of implementing OMT in the pediatric oncology clinical setting.

SUBMITTER: Belsky JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7767897 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supportive care and osteopathic medicine in pediatric oncology: perspectives of current oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients.

Belsky Jennifer A JA Stanek Joseph J Skeens Micah A MA Gerhardt Cynthia A CA Rose Melissa J MJ

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20200709 2

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Many children receiving chemotherapy struggle with therapy-induced side effects. To date, there has been no literature investigating the needs, knowledge, or implementation of osteopathic manipulative treatments (OMT) as a supportive care option in pediatric oncology. We hypothesized that pediatric oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients have (a) limited knowledge of OMT and (b) dissatisfaction with current supportive care options and (c) would be intereste ...[more]

PMID: 32647995

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunication 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsNurses, 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 summaryClinicians 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.

Project description:Chronic pain is a common condition that often interferes with work or other activities. Guidelines support the use of non-pharmacological treatments, such as spinal manipulation, in patients with chronic pain. Osteopathic physicians in the United States are uniquely positioned to manage chronic pain because their professional philosophy embraces the biopsychosocial model and they are trained in the use of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) to complement conventional medical care. This narrative review provides current perspectives on the osteopathic approach to chronic pain management, including evidence for the efficacy of OMT based on systematic searches of the biomedical literature and the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Men, persons with low levels of education, and non-White and Hispanic patients are significantly less likely to have received OMT during their lifetime. Patients with low back and neck pain are most likely to be treated with OMT, and osteopathic manipulative medicine specialty physicians and family medicine physicians most often use OMT. However, many osteopathic physicians report using OMT infrequently. Although OMT is considered safe, based on millions of patient encounters over more than a century, there is limited evidence on its efficacy in treating chronic pain. The lone exception involves chronic low back pain, wherein there is evidence from systematic reviews, a large clinical trial, and observational studies. There is lesser evidence to support cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction associated with OMT for chronic pain. The only clinical practice guideline established by the American Osteopathic Association recommends that OMT should be used to treat chronic low back pain in patients with somatic dysfunction. Given the philosophy of osteopathic medicine, universal training of osteopathic physicians to use OMT, and national guidelines supporting non-pharmacological treatments for chronic pain, it is unclear why OMT use is reported to be remarkably low in physician surveys.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guideline (CPG)-consistent care improves patient outcomes, but CPG implementation is poor. Little is known about CPG implementation in pediatric oncology. This study aimed to understand supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers at pediatric oncology National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) institutions.MethodsHealthcare professionals at 26 pediatric, Children's Oncology Group-member, NCORP institutions were invited to participate in face-to-face focus groups. Serial focus groups were held until saturation of ideas was reached. Supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers were solicited using nominal group technique (NGT), and implementation of specific supportive care CPG recommendations was discussed. Notes from each focus group were analyzed using a directed content analysis. The top five themes arising from an analysis of NGT items were identified, first from each focus group and then across all focus groups.ResultsSaturation of ideas was reached after seven focus groups involving 35 participants from 18 institutions. The top five facilitators of CPG implementation identified across all focus groups were organizational factors including charging teams with CPG implementation, individual factors including willingness to standardize care, user needs and values including mentorship, system factors including implementation structure, and implementation strategies including a basis in science. The top five barriers of CPG implementation identified were organizational factors including tolerance for inconsistencies, individual factors including lack of trust, system factors including administrative hurdles, user needs and values including lack of inclusivity, and professional including knowledge gaps.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals at pediatric NCORP institutions believe that organizational factors are the most important determinants of supportive care CPG implementation. They believe that CPG-consistent supportive care is most likely to be delivered in organizations that prioritize evidence-based care, provide structure and resources to implement CPGs, and eliminate implementation barriers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02847130. Date of registration: July 28, 2016.

Dataset Information

Supportive care and osteopathic medicine in pediatric oncology: perspectives of current oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients.

Background and objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Supportive care and osteopathic medicine in pediatric oncology: perspectives of current oncology clinicians, caregivers, and patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets