Implementation of child-centred outcome measures in routine paediatric healthcare practice: a systematic review

Background: Person-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) are commonly used in routine adult healthcare to measure and improve outcomes, but less attention has been paid to PCOMs in children’s services. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and synthesise existing evidence of the determinants, strategies, and mechanisms that influence the implementation of PCOMs into paediatric healthcare practice. Methods: The review was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Databased searched included CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycInfo. Google scholar was also searched for grey literature on 25th March 2022. Studies were included if the setting was a children’s healthcare service, investigating the implementation or use of an outcome measure or screening tool in healthcare practice, and reported outcomes relating to use of a measure. Data were tabulated and thematically analysed through deductive coding to the constructs of the adapted-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results were presented as a narrative synthesis, and a logic model developed. Results: We retained 69 studies, conducted across primary (n = 14), secondary (n = 13), tertiary (n = 37), and community (n = 8) healthcare settings, including both child self-report (n = 46) and parent-proxy (n = 47) measures. The most frequently reported barriers to measure implementation included staff lack of knowledge about how the measure may improve care and outcomes; the complexity of using and implementing the measure; and a lack of resources to support implementation and its continued use including funding and staff. The most frequently reported facilitators of implementation and continued use include educating and training staff and families on: how to implement and use the measure; the advantages of using PCOMs over current practice; and the benefit their use has on patient care and outcomes. The resulting logic model presents the mechanisms through which strategies can reduce the barriers to implementation and support the use of PCOMs in practice. Conclusions: These findings can be used to support the development of context-specific implementation plans through a combination of existing strategies. This will enable the implementation of PCOMs into routine paediatric healthcare practice to empower settings to better identify and improve child-centred outcomes. Trial registration: Prospero CRD 42022330013

Research priorities for children's cancer : a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK

OBJECTIVES: To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities. PARTICIPANTS: Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?' CONCLUSIONS: We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research

Research priorities for children’s cancer: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership in the United Kingdom

Objectives: to engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families, and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda.Design: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.Setting: UK health service and community.Methods: a steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities.Participants: children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends, and professionals who work with this population.Results: four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; four were already answered and three were under active study, therefore removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children’s surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was, ‘Can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short- and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?’Conclusions: we have identified research priorities for children’s cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families, and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research

Constitutional 11p15 abnormalities, including heritable imprinting center mutations, cause nonsyndromic Wilms tumor

Constitutional abnormalities at the imprinted 11p15 growth regulatory region cause syndromes characterized by disordered growth, some of which include a risk of Wilms tumor(1-3). We explored their possible contribution to nonsyndromic Wilms tumor and identified constitutional 11p15 abnormalities in genomic lymphocyte DNA from 13 of 437 individuals (3%) with sporadic Wilms tumor without features of growth disorders, including 12% of bilateral cases (P = 0.001) and in one familial Wilms tumor pedigree. No abnormality was detected in 220 controls (P = 0.006). Abnormalities identified included H19 DMR epimutations, uniparental disomy 11p15 and H19 DMR imprinting center mutations (one microinsertion and one microdeletion), thus identifying microinsertion as a new class of imprinting center mutation. Our data identify constitutional 11p15 defects as one of the most common known causes of Wilms tumor, provide mechanistic insights into imprinting disruption and reveal clinically important epigenotype-phenotype associations. The impact on clinical management dictates that constitutional 11p15 analysis should be considered in all individuals with Wilms tumor