Search

Background: As a result of the public health measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, many health services, including those for the treatment of eating disorders, were provided at a distance. This study aims to describe the adaptations made in specialized pediatric eating disorder programs in Canada and the impact of these adaptations on health professionals' experience of providing care. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to survey healthcare professionals working in specialized pediatric eating disorder programs about adaptations to treatment made during the pandemic and the impact of these adaptations on their experience of providing care. Data were collected between October 2021 and March 2022 using a cross-sectional survey comprising 25 questions and via semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were interpreted using qualitative content analysis. Results: Eighteen healthcare professionals in Canada completed the online survey, of whom six also participated in the semi-structured interviews. The cross-sectional survey confirmed that, unlike in pre-pandemic times, the majority of participants provided medical care (15/18) and mental health care (17/18) at a distance during the pandemic, with most participants using telephone (17/18) and videoconferencing (17/18). Most (16/18) health professionals indicated that virtual care would continue to be used as a tool in pediatric ED treatment after the pandemic. Participants used a combination of virtual and in-person care, with most reporting weighing patients both in clinic (16/18) and virtually (15/18). Qualitative content analysis generated five themes: (1) responding to increased demand with insufficient resources; (2) adapting to changes in care due to the COVID-19 pandemic; (3) dealing with uncertainty and apprehension; (4) virtual care as an acceptable and useful clinical tool, and (5) optimal conditions and future expectations. Most interview participants (5/6) had globally positive views of virtual care. Conclusions: Providing virtual multidisciplinary treatment for children and adolescents with eating disorders seemed feasible and acceptable to professionals during the pandemic. Moving forward, focusing on health professionals' perspectives and providing appropriate training in virtual interventions is essential given their central role in successful implementation and continued use of virtual and hybrid care models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In this paper we assess the quality of six deliberative stakeholder consultations regarding the implementation of a precision diagnostic for life-threatening pediatric brain tumors. Decision makers who base policy recommendations on the outputs of consultative exercises can presuppose that all deliberants are well informed of the policy issue, that participation in the deliberative process was fair, and that overcoming implementation barriers will necessarily result in practice change. Additional evidence is therefore needed to substantiate the informational quality of the deliberation, measure the equality of participation and study the effects on stakeholder reasoning to appropriately guide uptake of proposed recommendation(s). Methods: Using the DeVries framework for assessing the deliberative quality, we analyzed data from 44 post-consultation evaluation surveys completed by pediatric oncology and palliative care teams at two tertiary pediatric healthcare centers in Canada. We also conducted turn-taking and word-contribution analyses from the text transcriptions of each deliberation to assess equality of participation using descriptive statistics. Results: Deliberants agreed the quality of the deliberative process was fair (median ratings ranging from 9–10 out of 10) and the opportunities to receive expert information and discuss with others about the implementation of a new LDT were helpful (9.5 out of 10). While the session improved understanding of the implementation barriers and opportunities, it had marginal effects on deliberants' reasoning about whether LDTs would change their own clinical practice (3–10 out of 10). Participation was proportionate in at least four of the six deliberations, where no deliberant took more than 20% of total turns and contributed equal to, or less than 20% of total words. Conclusion: The quality assessment we performed demonstrates high informational value and perceived fairness of two deliberative stakeholder consultations involving pediatric palliative care and oncology teams in Canada. Quality assessments can reveal how the process of deliberation unfolds, whether deliberative outputs are the result of equitable participation among deliberants and what, if any, stakeholder voices may be missing. Such assessments should be routinely reported as a condition of methodological rigor and trustworthiness of deliberative stakeholder engagement research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]