Advancing the science of outcome measurement in paediatric palliative care
End-of-life; Outcomes; Paediatrics; Palliative; Measurement
BACKGROUND:: There is a lack of appropriate, validated person-centred outcome measures (PCOM) for paediatric palliative care in the scientific literature, and as a result there is not a tool to drive and evaluate care of children and young people. METHODS:: In line with COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance, an expert group was convened to elicit views on the domains/items to include in a PCOM, implementation challenges and requirements for use in routine care by practitioners. Data were content analysed. RESULTS:: 36 UK-wide clinicians, advocates, and researchers participated. 1) Items included were: specific symptoms, education, play and social interaction, parental time for partner and other children, sex and intimacy, and sibling wellbeing. 2) Implementation challenges: supporting children and young people to engage meaningfully, that the instrument could be seen as a 'test' of parents' care quality, raising unrealistic expectations, proxy validity. 3) There is a need for clear administration and interpretation guidance and for data ownership/access to be agreed. CONCLUSIONS:: This expert meeting addressed the initial step in COSMIN guidance, informing face validity and acceptability. It provides the information necessary for the first phase of tool development and informs potential use and implementation.
Harding R; Chambers L; Bluebond-Langner M
International journal of palliative nursing
2019
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
<a href="http://doi.org/10.12968/ijpn.2019.25.2.72" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.12968/ijpn.2019.25.2.72</a>
Methods to Assess Adverse Childhood Experiences of Children and Families: Toward Approaches to Promote Child Well-being in Policy and Practice
Adverse Childhood Experiences; Child Health; Measurement; Resilience
BACKGROUND: Advances in human development sciences point to tremendous possibilities to promote healthy child development and well-being across life by proactively supporting safe, stable and nurturing family relationships (SSNRs), teaching resilience, and intervening early to promote healing the trauma and stress associated with disruptions in SSNRs. Assessing potential disruptions in SSNRs, such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), can contribute to assessing risk for trauma and chronic and toxic stress by asking about ACEs can help with efforts to prevent and attenuate negative impacts on child development and both child and family well-being. Many methods to assess ACEs exist but have not been compared. The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) now measures ACEs for children, but requires further assessment and validation. METHODS: We identified and compared methods to assess ACEs among children and families, evaluated the acceptability and validity of the new NSCH-ACEs measure, and identified implications for assessing ACEs in research and practice. RESULTS: Of 14 ACEs assessment methods identified, 5 have been used in clinical settings (vs public health assessment or research) and all but 1 require self or parent report (3 allow child report). Across methods, 6 to 20 constructs are assessed, 4 of which are common to all: parental incarceration, domestic violence, household mental illness/suicide, household alcohol or substance abuse. Common additional content includes assessing exposure to neighborhood violence, bullying, discrimination, or parental death. All methods use a numeric, cumulative risk scoring methodology. The NSCH-ACEs measure was acceptable to respondents as evidenced by few missing values and no reduction in response rate attributable to asking about children's ACEs. The 9 ACEs assessed in the NSCH co-occur, with most children with 1 ACE having additional ACEs. This measure showed efficiency and confirmatory factor analysis as well as latent class analysis supported a cumulative risk scoring method. Formative as well as reflective measurement models further support cumulative risk scoring and provide evidence of predictive validity of the NSCH-ACEs. Common effects of ACEs across household income groups confirm information distinct from economic status is provided and suggest use of population-wide versus high-risk approaches to assessing ACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Although important variations exist, available ACEs measurement methods are similar and show consistent associations with poorer health outcomes in absence of protective factors and resilience. All methods reviewed appear to coincide with broader goals to facilitate health education, promote health and, where needed, to mitigate the trauma, chronic stress, and behavioral and emotional sequelae that can arise with exposure to ACEs. Assessing ACEs appears acceptable to individuals and families when conducted in population-based and clinical research contexts. Although research to date and neurobiological findings compel early identification and health education about ACEs in clinical settings, further research to guide use in pediatric practice is required, especially as it relates to distinguishing ACEs assessment from identifying current family psychosocial risks and child abuse. The reflective as well as formative psychometric analyses conducted in this study confirm use of cumulative risk scoring for the NSCH-ACEs measure. Even if children have not been exposed to ACEs, assessing ACEs has value as an educational tool for engaging and educating families and children about the importance of SSNRs and how to recognize and manage stress and learn resilience.
Bethell CD; Carle A; Hudziak J; Gombojav N; Powers K; Wade R; Braveman P
Academic Pediatrics
2017
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
10.1016/j.acap.2017.04.161
Quality Indicators And Parental Satisfaction With Perinatal Palliative Care In The Intrapartum Setting After Diagnosis Of A Life-limiting Fetal Condition
Perinatal; State; Model; Program; Decisions; Prenatal-diagnosis; Nursing; Fetal Diagnosis; Palliative Care; Quality Indicators; Experiences; Measurement; Medical Care; Diagnosis; Health Aspects; Palliative Treatment; Fetal Diseases; Analysis; Quality Management; Pregnancy; Medical Diagnosis; Palliative Care; Parents & Parenting; Perception; Quality Of Care
Measurement of quality indicators (QIs) in perinatal palliative care has not been addressed. Parents who chose to continue pregnancy after a diagnosis of a life-limiting fetal condition described perceptions of quality care and their satisfaction with care. This research identified which QIs explained parental satisfaction. High QI scores are associated with parental satisfaction. Parents who were satisfied reported 2.9 times the odds that their baby was treated with dignity and respect and 3.4 times the odds their medical care was addressed. This research is a first step in developing a robust measure of QIs in perinatal palliative care.
Wool C; Black BP; Woods AB
Advances In Nursing Science
2016
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
DOI: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000147