ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify body impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions in children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer amenable to rehabilitation, and provide the recommended screening, assessment and rehabilitation referral information for the health care community. DATA SOURCES: A review of the rehabilitation and pediatric oncology literature regarding functional impairments in combination with clinical expertise from practicing pediatric oncology rehabilitation therapists. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation intervention has great potential to mitigate the impact of cancer and its treatment and may even have a role in reducing morbidity and mortality. All health care providers have a role in optimizing the function and quality of life in the pediatric cancer population. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: It is imperative for nurses to utilize subjective and clinical screening to identify persons appropriate for rehabilitation referral, collaborate with the rehabilitation team, and support the patients and families in adhering to rehabilitation recommendations.
Subject(s)
Adolescent Medicine/standards , Neoplasms/psychology , Neoplasms/rehabilitation , Oncology Nursing/standards , Pediatrics/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Rehabilitation Nursing/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Quality of Life/psychology , Young AdultABSTRACT
This study sought to describe speech-language interventions for preschool-aged children who required augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) as provided by AAC experts and by general speech-language pathologists who were not AAC experts. The study also examined the types of technology used in AAC intervention by AAC experts. A retrospective chart review was conducted in which clinic records of 38 preschool-aged children who received expert AAC services were examined. Results showed that interventions provided to the children by general speech-language pathologists (who were not AAC experts) tended to be broader in scope, focusing on reducing underlying impairments. Interventions provided by AAC experts tended to focus on improving activities and participation and were oriented toward improving functional communication. The most commonly used AAC intervention tools by AAC experts were low-tech tools and simple digitized devices.
