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]

The PLAYshop program is a parent-focused physical literacy intervention for early childhood. This single-group mixed-methods pilot study aimed to explore the feasibility of virtually delivering and assessing the PLAYshop program. The virtual PLAYshop program included a virtual workshop, resources/basic equipment, and two booster emails (3-week and 6-week follow-up). Data on 34 preschool-aged children (3–5 years) and their parents from Edmonton and Victoria, Canada, were collected via an online questionnaire, virtual assessment session, and interview at single or multiple time points (baseline, post-workshop, 2-month follow-up). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), paired t-tests, repeated measures ANOVAs, and thematic analyses were conducted. Regarding feasibility, most parents (≥94%) were satisfied/extremely satisfied with the virtual workshop and planned to continue physical literacy activities post-workshop. The virtual assessment protocol for children's fundamental movement skills (FMS; overhand throw, underhand throw, horizontal jump, hop, one-leg balance) was feasible, with high completion rates (>90%) and reliable scoring (ICC = 0.79–0.99). For positive changes in potential outcomes, a medium effect size was observed for children's hopping skills (d = 0.54), and large effect sizes were observed for several parental outcomes (partial η2 = 0.20–0.54). The findings support the feasibility and potential positive outcomes of the virtual PLAYshop program. A larger randomized controlled efficacy trial is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play an important role in promoting and supporting patient and family-centered care. Implementing interventions like PROMs in routine clinical care require key stakeholders to change their behavior. The aim of this study was to utilize the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs in pediatric outpatient asthma clinics from healthcare providers' perspective. Methods: This TDF-guided qualitative descriptive study is part of a larger multi-phase project to develop the KidsPRO program, an electronic platform to administer, collect, and use PROMs in pediatrics. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 participants, which included pediatricians, nurses, allied health professionals and administrative staff from outpatient asthma clinics. All the interviews were transcribed, deductively coded, inductively grouped in themes, and categorized into barriers and enablers. Results: We identified 33 themes within 14 TDF domains, which were further categorized and tabulated into 16 barriers and 17 enablers to implementing PROMs in asthma clinics. Barriers to behavioral change were attributed to personal, clinical, non-clinical, and other system-level factors; they ranged from limited awareness of PROMs to language barriers and patient's complex family background. Enablers ranged from a personal commitment to providing patient and family-centered care to administering PROMs electronically. Conclusion: This implementation of science-based systematic inquiry captured the complexity of PROMs implementation in pediatric outpatient clinical care for asthma. Considering the consistency in barriers and enablers to implementing PROMs across patient populations and care settings, many findings of this study will be directly applicable to other pediatric healthcare settings. [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]