Christina Baggott1, Bruce A Cooper, Neyssa Marina, Katherine K Matthay, Christine Miaskowski. 1. Author Affiliations: Departments of Physiological Nursing (Drs Baggott and Miaskowski) and Community Health Systems (Dr Cooper), University of California San Francisco; Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (Dr Marina); and Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco (Dr Matthay).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluations in pediatric oncology are often triadic, involving children or adolescents, parents, and clinicians. However, few studies have evaluated the concordance between children's and parents' reports of symptom occurrence. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the concordance between children's and parents' symptom reports during the week of chemotherapy administration using 5 statistical approaches and determine which factors are associated with higher levels of dyadic concordance. METHODS: Independent assessments of symptom occurrence were obtained from children and adolescents with cancer (n = 107) and their parents using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale 10-18. Concordance was assessed using (1) percentage of overall agreement, (2) Cohen κ coefficients, (3) McNemar tests, (4) positive percentage agreement, and (5) negative percentage agreement. RESULTS: For each dyad, an average of 20 of the 31 symptom reports were concordant. Using children's reports as the "gold standard," parents rarely underestimated the children's symptoms. However, compared with children's reports, parents overestimated 7 symptoms. Advantages and disadvantages of each of the statistical approaches used to evaluate concordance are described in this article. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of statistical approaches are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of the concordance between symptom reports. Discordance was most common for symptoms that children refuted, particularly psychosocial symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinicians need to interview children and adolescents along with their parents about the occurrence of symptoms and evaluate discrepant reports. Effective approaches are needed to improve communication between children and parents to improve symptom assessment and management.
BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluations in pediatric oncology are often triadic, involving children or adolescents, parents, and clinicians. However, few studies have evaluated the concordance between children's and parents' reports of symptom occurrence. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the concordance between children's and parents' symptom reports during the week of chemotherapy administration using 5 statistical approaches and determine which factors are associated with higher levels of dyadic concordance. METHODS: Independent assessments of symptom occurrence were obtained from children and adolescents with cancer (n = 107) and their parents using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale 10-18. Concordance was assessed using (1) percentage of overall agreement, (2) Cohen κ coefficients, (3) McNemar tests, (4) positive percentage agreement, and (5) negative percentage agreement. RESULTS: For each dyad, an average of 20 of the 31 symptom reports were concordant. Using children's reports as the "gold standard," parents rarely underestimated the children's symptoms. However, compared with children's reports, parents overestimated 7 symptoms. Advantages and disadvantages of each of the statistical approaches used to evaluate concordance are described in this article. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of statistical approaches are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of the concordance between symptom reports. Discordance was most common for symptoms that children refuted, particularly psychosocial symptoms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinicians need to interview children and adolescents along with their parents about the occurrence of symptoms and evaluate discrepant reports. Effective approaches are needed to improve communication between children and parents to improve symptom assessment and management.
Authors: Shannon Hyslop; Deborah Tomlinson; Christina Baggott; David Dix; Paul Gibson; Donna L Johnston; Andrea D Orsey; Carol Portwine; Vicky Price; Magimairajan Vanan; Susan Kuczynski; Brenda Spiegler; George A Tomlinson; L Lee Dupuis; Lillian Sung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David R Freyer; Li Lin; Jennifer W Mack; Scott H Maurer; Molly McFatrich; Justin N Baker; Shana S Jacobs; Nicole Lucas; Janice S Withycombe; Deborah Tomlinson; Katie Rose Villabroza; Mia K Waldron; Pamela S Hinds; Bryce B Reeve Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Donna S Zhukovsky; Cathy L Rozmus; Rhonda S Robert; Eduardo Bruera; Robert J Wells; Gary B Chisholm; Julio A Allo; Marlene Z Cohen Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Elizabeth D Cox; Sarah K Dobrozsi; Christopher B Forrest; Wendy E Gerhardt; Harald Kliems; Bryce B Reeve; Nan E Rothrock; Jin-Shei Lai; Jacob M Svenson; Lindsay A Thompson; Thuy Dan N Tran; Carole A Tucker Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Deborah Tomlinson; Erin Plenert; Grace Dadzie; Robyn Loves; Sadie Cook; Tal Schechter; Jennifer Furtado; L Lee Dupuis; Lillian Sung Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-06-21 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Sandra de Andrade Cadamuro; Julia Onishi Franco; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Marco Antonio de Oliveira; Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.692