Kieandra Harvey

Bio: Kieandra Harvey is an academic researcher from Washington University in St. Louis. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pediatric cancer & Palliative care. The author has co-authored 1 publications.

Multilevel barriers and facilitators of communication in pediatric oncology: A systematic review.

Abstract: Multiple factors can facilitate or impede the fulfillment of communication functions in pediatric cancer. In this systematic review, we evaluated 109 studies from the preceding 20 years that presented qualitative or quantitative evidence of barriers or facilitators to communication in pediatric cancer. Using a multilevel framework developed in our prior study, we then analyzed and categorized the levels of barriers and facilitators identified in included studies. The vast majority of studies focused on individual-level barriers, rather than team, organization/system, collaborating hospital, community, or policy-level barriers. Future studies should explore the full range of factors that affect communication.

Communication Tools Used in Cancer Communication with Children: A Scoping Review

Abstract: Simple Summary Despite the potential benefits of effective communication, telling children about unpredictable and life-threatening conditions such as cancer is challenging. This scoping review aimed to map the potential communication tools for children with cancer, their families, and healthcare professionals. We found 25 studies and 21 communication tools. Communication tools might support children to improve their knowledge and psychological outcomes. However, we found a lack of communication tools that were (1) accessible and validated, (2) designed for healthcare professionals, (3) targeted children, families, and healthcare professionals, and (4) were designed to meet the needs of children and families. This review identified areas for further research. Abstract Background: Although communication tools might guide healthcare professionals in communicating with children about cancer, it is unclear what kind of tools are used. This scoping review aimed to map the communication tools used in cancer communication among children with cancer, families, and healthcare professionals. Methods: A comprehensive search using PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted on 1 August 2021. We mapped communication tools and their impacts. Results: We included 25 studies (9 experimental studies and 16 feasibility studies) of 29 reports and found 21 communication tools. There was a lack of communication tools that were (1) accessible and validated, (2) designed for healthcare professionals, (3) targeted children, families, and healthcare professionals, and (4) were designed to meet the needs of children and families. Experimental studies showed that the communication tools improved children’s knowledge and psychological outcomes (e.g., health locus of control, quality of life, self-efficacy). Conclusion: We mapped communication tools and identified areas that needed further research, including a lack of tools to guide healthcare professionals and share information with children and families. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate these communication tools. Moreover, it is necessary to investigate how communication tools support children, families, and healthcare professionals.

Prognosis Communication in Pediatric Oncology: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Background: While communication plays an important role in medicine, it also often represents a challenge when the topic at hand is the prognosis of a high-risk condition. When it comes to pediatric oncology, the challenge becomes even greater for physicians who have to adapt their discourse to both the child and their family. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, an advanced search on PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library was performed, from 1 January 2017 to 31 October 2022. Demographic data for caregivers, pediatric patients and physicians were extracted, as well as diagnosis, prognosis, presence at discussion, emotional states and impact on life, trust, decision roles, communication quality and other outcomes. Results: A total of 21 articles were analyzed. Most studies (17) focused on caregivers, while only seven and five studies were focused on children and physicians, respectively. Most parents reported high trust in their physicians (73.01%), taking the leading role in decision making (48%), moderate distress levels (46.68%), a strong desire for more information (78.64%), receiving high-quality information (56.71%) and communication (52.73%). Most children were not present at discussions (63.98%); however, their desire to know more was expressed in three studies. Moreover, only two studies observed children being involved in decision making. Most physicians had less than 20 years of experience (55.02%) and reported the use of both words and statistics (47.3%) as a communication method. Conclusions: Communication research is focused more on caregivers, yet children may understand more than they seem capable of and want to be included in the conversation. More studies should focus on and quantify the opinions of children and their physicians. In order to improve the quality of communication, healthcare workers should receive professional training.

Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities.

Abstract: Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

Prognostic Communication Between Parents and Clinicians in Pediatric Oncology: An Integrative Review.

Abstract: Background: Prognostic communication between clinicians and parents in pediatric oncology is complex. However, no review has exclusively examined research on prognostic communication in pediatric oncology. In this review, we synthesize the evidence on prognostic communication in pediatric oncology and provide recommendations for future research. Methods: We conducted an integrative review searching six databases for studies on prognostic communication in pediatric oncology as of August 2022. We applied descriptive and narrative approaches to data analysis. Results: Fourteen quantitative and five qualitative studies were included. All studies were conducted in Western developed countries. In total, 804 parents of 770 children with cancer were included. Across studies, parents were predominately female, Non-Hispanic White, and had high school or higher levels of education. Most parents reported that prognostic communication was initiated in the first year after their children's diagnosis. High-quality prognostic communication was positively associated with trust and hope and negatively associated with parental distress and decisional regret. In qualitative studies, parents suggested that prognostic communication should be open, ongoing, and delivered with sensitivity. Most studies were of moderate quality. The main gaps included inconsistent definitions of prognostic communication, and a lack of comprehensive and validated measurements, high-quality longitudinal studies, and diverse settings and participants. Conclusions: Clinicians should initiate high-quality prognostic communication early on in clinical practice. Future research should consider conducting high-quality longitudinal studies, developing prognostic communication definitions and measurements, and conducting studies across settings with diverse populations.