1 / 51

Is t he ‘Child’s Voice’ from Diagnosis to End-of-Life Trustworthy?

Is t he ‘Child’s Voice’ from Diagnosis to End-of-Life Trustworthy?. Pamela S. Hinds, PhD, RN, FAAN Director, Department of Nursing Research and Quality Outcomes Associate Director, Center for Translational Research Children’s National Health System Professor, Department of Pediatrics

madaline-dunlap
Télécharger la présentation

Is t he ‘Child’s Voice’ from Diagnosis to End-of-Life Trustworthy?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is the ‘Child’s Voice’ from Diagnosis to End-of-Life Trustworthy? Pamela S. Hinds, PhD, RN, FAAN Director, Department of Nursing Research and Quality Outcomes Associate Director, Center for Translational Research Children’s National Health System Professor, Department of Pediatrics The George Washington University

  2. Washington, D.C. Children’s National Medical Center

  3. Disclosure • I do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. • Funding sources for the data included in this presentation include the National Institute of Nursing Research , the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Association of Critical Care Nurses, the Oncology Nursing Foundation, and Alex’s Lemonade Foundation

  4. Child Voice Considered as Part of the Family Voice

  5. Most Excellent Co-Investigators • Judy Hicks, LCSW • Wayne Furman, MD • Linda Oakes, MSN • Deo Kumar Srivastava, PhD • Justin Baker, MD • Sheri Spunt, MD • Johanna Menard, BSN • Chris Feudtner, MD • Nancy West, BSN • Brent Powell, MDiv • Shana Jacobs, MD • Scott Mauer, MD • Michele Pritchard, PhD, RN • Jami Gattuso, MSN • Chris Feudtner, MD • Tessie October, MD

  6. Most Excellent Co-Investigators • Bryce Reeve, PhD • David Freyer, DO, MPH • Lillian Sung, M.D., PhD • Catriona Mowbray, PhD, RN • Kathy Kelly, PhD, RN • Steven Joffee, M.D. • Janice Wythcombe, PhD, RN • Jichuan Wang, PhD • Changrong Yuan, PhD, RN

  7. Provide a description of the child’s voice an overview of the evolution of child -reported outcomes in clinical investigations describe the parallel science of parent and clinician reports of child treatment Overview of Comments

  8. Overview of Comments • Describe research methods to solicit the child’s voice • Address using the child’s voice • Describe future steps to document and apply the child’s voice in clinical investigations and care

  9. The Child’s Voice - What is it? Why seek it? How do we seek it? When do we seek it? How do we use it?

  10. The Child’s Voice • What is ‘the child’s voice’? • Literature review • Reflection on completed pediatric studies • Dialogue with pediatric and family researchers • Review of federal policies

  11. The Child’s Voice • The direct reports of children using qualitative (e.g., words, colors, photos, depictions) , quantitative or both approaches to convey to others the quality of their illness experiences during a defined period of time.

  12. The Child’s Voice What it is not: • Body and facial expressions not included: require interpretation • Age not included: variation • Parent voice • Clinician voice

  13. The Child’s Voice: What is in the voice? • Availability • Intensity/ Degrees • Meaning

  14. The Child’s Voice • What evidence do we have that the child’s voice is real?

  15. The Child’s Voice: Is it Real? • Symptoms • Pain - presence, location, intensity, change • Eland, 1975; 1978 • Awareness of Serious Illness • Not going to go home from the hospital • Not going to get better • Able to compare self to others • Bluebond-Langer, 1978

  16. Pediatric Self-Report Evolution of the Past Three Decades Clinician Reports (CTCAE) Use of Formatting changes to match Child Development (Rand) Pediatric Definitions/Descriptions ● ● ● ● Adult Measures(HUI) ● Proxy Reports ● Proxy Reports (Play Performance Scale) No Conceptual definitions for Pediatrics IQ Assessments

  17. Can an Ill Child Report? • Evidence for ability to report symptoms • >130 reports in past 32 years • Instrumentation studies • Theory testing • Intervention

  18. Can an Ill Child Report? • >500 children 5 to 18+ years of age • Time of Diagnosis • Following the first course or 6 weeks of treatment • 3 months into treatment • 6 months into treatment • End of treatment • Survivorship

  19. Can an Ill Child Report? • Age of child reports: QoL • 3 and 4 year olds – quantitative - pain • 5 years of age and older - quantitative – quality of life • Up to 20% of 5 year olds uncomfortable with selecting a score • Up to 15% of 6 year olds uncomfortable • Up to 10% of 7 year olds uncomfortable

  20. Can an Ill Child Report? • Aspect of TIME in the description of ‘the Child’s Voice’ • Ability to report changes over time • Past 7 days/Past 30 days • Influence of maturation and of the moment

  21. Can an Ill Child Report? • Quality of Life • Symptoms • Satisfaction with Care • Preference for Decision Making

  22. Evolution of Pediatric Self-Report Measures for the Past Four Decades Clinician Reports (CTCAE) Use of Formatting changes to match Child Development (Rand) Pediatric Definitions/Descriptions ● ● ● ● Adult Measures(Hill) ● Proxy Reports ● Proxy Reports (Play Performance) No Conceptual definitions for Pediatrics Government Role ● Patient-Reported Outcomes as Primary

  23. National Initiatives and PROsFood and Drug Administration Guidelines-1 • “Guidance for Industry—Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims” (December, 2009) • Content Overview • Appropriate role of PRO in development of medical products • Evaluation of PRO instruments (multiple criteria) • Clinical Trial Designs • Approaches to Data Analysis • FDA accepts PRO endpoints in reviewing product applications • Further highlights importance of PROs at national level

  24. National Initiatives and PROsFood and Drug Administration Gludeliens-2 • Criteria for evaluating a PRO as a clinical trial endpoint • Conceptual framework underlying instrument • Selection of concepts relevant to disease, population and treatment being evaluated • Key properties of instrumentation • Reliability • Test-retest • Internal consistency • Validity • Content • Construct • Clinical sensitivity (ability to detect change)

  25. National Initiatives and PROsFood and Drug Administration Guidelines-3 Considerations for Children and Adolescents • In general, PRO review criteria similar to adults • Additional age-related criteria • Age-related vocabulary • Language comprehension • Comprehension of health concept being measured • Duration of recall • Proxy-reported outcome measures are discouraged • Observer reports should include only those events or behaviors that are directly observable

  26. Evolution of Pediatric Self-Report Measures for the Past Four Decades Clinician Reports (CTCAE) Use of Formatting changes to match Child Development (Rand) Pediatric Definitions/Descriptions ● ● ● ● Adult Measures(HUI) ● Proxy Reports ● Proxy Reports (Play Performance Scale) No Conceptual definitions for Pediatrics Child Voice Incorporated into research and care Government Role ● Patient-Reported Outcomes as Primary

  27. Evolution: Practice Guidelines

  28. Research Priority Recommendations

  29. Measuring the Child’s Voice • Evolution from disease-specific instruments to document ill child’s voice • Comparability across clinical contexts • Core instruments i.e., Pediatric PROMIS measures • Pediatric PROMIS use with children diagnosed with cancer, sickle cell disease, asthma, kidney disease

  30. Soliciting Pediatric Reported Outcomes • Future Next Steps

  31. Can Ill Children Report Treatment Toxicity? • Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), v. 4.03, 2010 • Mandatory report by clinicians (DHHS/NIH/NCI) • 147 clinicians identified AEs that children 7 to 20 years of age could report (subjective experiences) • RO1 to create and validate the Pediatric CTCAE

  32. Cognitive Interviewing

  33. Cognitive Interviewing - Spanish

  34. Soliciting the Child’s Voice • ‘Please tell me what you are hoping for now.’

  35. When Would a Child’s Voice be Silent? • Able but not invited to speak • Able but not wanting to report • Lack of confidence in self • Lack of confidence in those asking • Fear of outcomes • Protecting others • Not Able to speak • Not understanding the method • Too ill

  36. Soliciting the Child’s Voice • Future Next Steps

  37. Can Ill Children Report Treatment Toxicity? • Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), v. 4.03, 2010 • Mandatory report by clinicians (DHHS/NIH/NCI) • 147 clinicians identified AEs that children 7 to 20 years of age could report (subjective experiences) • RO1 to create and validate the Pediatric CTCAE

  38. How Do We Validate the Ill Child’s Voice?

  39. Can a Very Ill Child Report? • Evidence for ability to report symptoms • >130 reports in past 15 years; <5% at end of life

  40. Ill Child Reports at End of Life: 2007

  41. Ill Child Reports at End of Life: 2012

  42. Timing of Soliciting the Very Ill Child’s Voice • Before the child loses his/her voice • Soliciting child preferences • Method flexibility • Method blending

  43. Can There be Only One Voice? • Ill child and parent agreement • Measuring agreement over time • Challenging current approaches to ‘agreement’ • Estimation of change, concern • Effect of training to report • Other voices other than parent/guardian?

  44. Child Voice/ Family Voice ILL CHILD THE PARENT THE WELL SIBLING

  45. Child and Parent Voices at End of Life • Parent: • Doing as my child would prefer • Child: • Thinking about my relationships with others

  46. Single Unit of Analysis and Interpretation • Child Reports • Exclusionary • Informed • Collaborative • Delegation: Allowed to choose • Parent Reports • Exclusionary • Informed • Collaborative • Delegation: Allowed to choose

  47. Combining Voices: Dyad, Triad and More • Family Level of Analysis • Family and Clinician Level of Analysis

  48. Primary Points • Ill children can self-report during illness and end-of-life care • Parent s and clinicians add important voices to the ill child’s treatment and end-of-life experiences • Single unit analyses and interpretations (ill child, parent, clinician) are informative but insufficient

  49. The Child’s Voice - What is it? Why seek it? How do we seek it? When do we seek it? How do we use it?

  50. Of What Benefit is the Child’s Voice in Research and Care? • Accurate symptom and quality of life assessments • Impact of therapy • Impact of care • Patient and parent trust of clinicians and satisfaction with care • Relationship with treatment decision- making

More Related