Global caregiver concerns of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in children with cancer: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study.

The objective of this study was to understand global caregiver concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children with cancer and to provide healthcare providers with guidance to support parental decision-making. A co-designed cross-sectional mixed-methods survey was distributed to primary caregivers of children with cancer globally between April and May 2021 via several media. Caregivers were asked to rate the importance of vaccine-related questions and the median scores were ranked. Principal Component Analysis was conducted to identify underlying dimensions of caregiver concerns by World Bank income groups. Content analysis of free-text responses was conducted and triangulated with the quantitative findings. 627 caregivers from 22 countries responded to the survey with 5.3% (n = 67) responses from low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). 184 caregivers (29%) provided free-text responses. Side effects and vaccine safety were caregivers' primary concerns in all countries. Questions related to logistics were of concern for caregivers in LMIC. A small minority of caregivers (n = 17) did not consider the survey questions important; free-text analysis identified these parents as vaccine hesitant, some of them quoting safety and side effects as main reasons for hesitancy. Healthcare providers and other community organizations globally need to provide tailored information about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pediatric oncology settings. Importantly, continued efforts are imperative to reduce global inequities in logistical access to vaccines, particularly in LMIC.

Global caregiver perspectives on COVID-19 immunization in childhood cancer: A qualitative study.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 has led to an unprecedented pandemic where vulnerable populations, such as those with childhood cancer, face increased risk of morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 vaccines are a critical intervention to control the pandemic and ensure patient safety. This study explores global caregiver's perspectives related to COVID-19 immunization in the context of pediatric cancer management. Methods: A mixed methods survey was developed based on consensus questions with iterative feedback from global medical professional and caregiver groups and distributed globally to caregivers of childhood cancer via electronic and paper routes. We present qualitative findings through inductive content analysis of caregiver free-text responses. Results: A total of 184 participants provided qualitative responses, 29.3% of total survey respondents, with a total of 271 codes applied. Codes focused on themes related to safety and effectiveness (n = 95, 35.1%), logistics (n = 69, 25.5%), statements supporting or opposing vaccination (n = 55, 20.3%), and statements discussing the limited availability of information (n = 31, 11.4%). Within the theme of safety and effectiveness, safety itself was the most commonly used code (n = 66, 24.4% of total segments and 69.5% of safety and effectiveness codes), followed by risks versus benefits (n = 18, 18.9% of safety and effectiveness codes) and efficacy (n = 11, 11.6%). Discussion: This study provides insights to guide healthcare professionals and caregiver peers in supporting families during the complex decision-making process for COVID-19 vaccination. These findings highlight the multidimensionality of concerns and considerations of caregivers of children with cancer regarding COVID-19 vaccination and suggest that certain perspectives transcend borders and cultures.

Can I go home now? The safety and efficacy of a new UK paediatric febrile neutropenia protocol for risk-stratified early discharge on oral antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new protocol of risk stratification and early discharge for children with febrile neutropenia (FN). DESIGN: Prospective service evaluation from 17 April 2020 to 16 April 2021. SETTING: 13 specialist centres in the UK. PATIENTS: 405 children presenting with FN. INTERVENTION: All children received intravenous antibiotics at presentation. Risk stratification was determined using the Australian-UK-Swiss (AUS) rule and eligibility for homecare assessed using criteria including disease, chemotherapy, presenting features and social factors. Those eligible for homecare could be discharged on oral antibiotics after a period of observation proportional to their risk group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median duration of admission and of intravenous antibiotics, and percentage of patients with positive blood cultures, significant infection, readmission within 7 days of initial presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, death from infection and death from other causes. RESULTS: 13 centres contributed 729 initial presentations of 405 patients. AUS rule scores were positively correlated with positive blood cultures, significant infection, ICU admission and death. 20% of children were eligible for homecare with oral antibiotics, of which 55% were low risk (AUS 0-1). 46% low-risk homecare eligible patients were discharged by 24 hours vs 2% homecare ineligible. Homecare readmission rates were 14% overall and 16% for low-risk cases (similar to a meta-analysis of previous studies). No child eligible for homecare was admitted to ICU or died. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the AUS rule and homecare criteria allow for safe early outpatient management of children with FN.

Answers to common questions about COVID-19 vaccines in children with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in 2020 evolved into a global pandemic, and COVID-19 vaccines became rapidly available, including for pediatric patients. However, questions emerged that challenged vaccine acceptance and use. We aimed to answer these questions and give recommendations applicable for use in pediatric patients with cancer by healthcare professionals and the public. METHODS: A 12-member global COVID-19 Vaccine in Pediatric Oncology Working Group made up of physicians and nurses from all world regions met weekly from March to July 2021. We used a modified Delphi method to select the top questions. The Working Group, in four-member subgroups, answered assigned questions by providing brief recommendations, followed by a discussion of the rationale for each answer. All Working Group members voted on each recommendation using a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being complete agreement. A "pass" recommendation corresponded to an agreement ≥7.5. RESULTS: We selected 15 questions from 173 suggested questions. Based on existing published information, we generated answers for each question as recommendations. The overall average agreement for the 24 recommendations was 9.5 (95% CI 9.4-9.6). CONCLUSION: Top COVID-19 vaccine-related questions could be answered using available information. Reports on COVID-19 vaccination and related topics have been published at record speed, aided by available technology and the priority imposed by the pandemic; however, all efforts were made to incorporate emerging information throughout our project. Recommendations will be periodically updated on a dedicated website.

Implementation of multidisciplinary reflective rounds within a children's hospital before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIM: Regular reflective practice within a large group setting has been shown to reduce levels of burnout in healthcare professionals. We describe how regular reflective rounds were designed and implemented within an existing educational program at a UK children's hospital and report on the feedback received from participants. METHODS: Eight face-to-face reflective rounds took place in Southampton Children's Hospital, UK, from September 2017 to February 2020 with a further virtual round in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each round was facilitated by a clinical psychologist and consultant. For each round, up to three volunteer panellists from different staff groups were invited to share their personal experiences on a pre-selected subject to the large group. The group would then contribute to the discussion by offering their own reflections. Feedback forms were distributed to attendees and collated. RESULTS: Eight rounds were held with mean attendance of 32 (range 19-47). Across the eight rounds, the total attendance was 256 staff members. The virtual round had 20 participants. Feedback was received from 202 participants. The majority (98%) would recommend the rounds to colleagues with 64 participants (32%) rating the rounds as 'exceptional' and 91 (45%) as 'excellent'. The virtual round received similar positive feedback. CONCLUSION: Large group reflective practice can be implemented within an existing regular educational program. Rounds have been well received by participants and are likely to be of relevance and value to other healthcare groups. The rounds can also be delivered effectively virtually, which may increase participation.