Breya Walker1, Heather M Conklin2, Doralina L Anghelescu3, Lacey P Hall2, Wilburn E Reddick4, Robert Ogg4, Lisa M Jacola5. 1. Department of Pediatric Medicine, Division of Nursing Research, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, MS738, Memphis, TN, 38105, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, MS740, Memphis, TN, 38105, USA. 3. Department of Pediatric Medicine, Division of Anesthesiology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, MS130, Memphis, TN, 38105, USA. 4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, MS220, Memphis, TN, 38105, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, MS740, Memphis, TN, 38105, USA. lisa.jacola@stjude.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children with cancer frequently require MRI scans for clinical purposes. Sedation with general anesthesia (GA) is often used to promote compliance, reduce motion, and alleviate anxiety. The use of GA for MRI scans is costly in terms of time, personnel, and medications. In addition, prominent risks are associated with anesthesia exposure in patients with complex medical conditions. Successful behavioral interventions have been implemented in clinical research settings to promote scan success and compliance. To our knowledge, parent/caregiver acceptability of behavioral interventions to promote nonsedated MRI has not been systematically investigated in a medically complex population. As a first step toward developing a protocol-based intervention to promote nonsedated scanning, we conducted a survey to explore parental perspectives regarding acceptability of nonsedated scanning and to gain information regarding preference for specific behavioral interventions to facilitate nonsedated MRI exams. METHODS: Parents or guardians of 101 patients diagnosed with childhood cancer participated in a semi-structured survey via telephone. The sample was stratified by age group (8-12 years; 13-18 years), gender, and diagnosis (solid tumor (ST), brain tumor (BT), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)). RESULTS: The majority of parents indicated that nonsedated MRI scans would be acceptable. Reduced anesthesia exposure was the most frequently identified benefit, followed by decreased irritability post-MRI scan, and shorter appointment time. Challenges included fear of movement and noise during scans and change in routine, with parents of younger children and those with a history of sedated exams identifying more challenges. Behavioral intervention preference differed by patient age and gender; however, education was ranked as most preferred overall. CONCLUSION: Parents of children treated for cancer consider behavior interventions to promote nonsedated scanning as acceptable. Patient characteristics should be considered when tailoring behavioral interventions. Results can inform future studies of behavioral interventions to promote nonsedated MRI scans. Future research should also investigate the risks associated with failed exams, both in terms of patient medical care and cost effectiveness.
PURPOSE:Children with cancer frequently require MRI scans for clinical purposes. Sedation with general anesthesia (GA) is often used to promote compliance, reduce motion, and alleviate anxiety. The use of GA for MRI scans is costly in terms of time, personnel, and medications. In addition, prominent risks are associated with anesthesia exposure in patients with complex medical conditions. Successful behavioral interventions have been implemented in clinical research settings to promote scan success and compliance. To our knowledge, parent/caregiver acceptability of behavioral interventions to promote nonsedated MRI has not been systematically investigated in a medically complex population. As a first step toward developing a protocol-based intervention to promote nonsedated scanning, we conducted a survey to explore parental perspectives regarding acceptability of nonsedated scanning and to gain information regarding preference for specific behavioral interventions to facilitate nonsedated MRI exams. METHODS: Parents or guardians of 101 patients diagnosed with childhood cancer participated in a semi-structured survey via telephone. The sample was stratified by age group (8-12 years; 13-18 years), gender, and diagnosis (solid tumor (ST), brain tumor (BT), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)). RESULTS: The majority of parents indicated that nonsedated MRI scans would be acceptable. Reduced anesthesia exposure was the most frequently identified benefit, followed by decreased irritability post-MRI scan, and shorter appointment time. Challenges included fear of movement and noise during scans and change in routine, with parents of younger children and those with a history of sedated exams identifying more challenges. Behavioral intervention preference differed by patient age and gender; however, education was ranked as most preferred overall. CONCLUSION: Parents of children treated for cancer consider behavior interventions to promote nonsedated scanning as acceptable. Patient characteristics should be considered when tailoring behavioral interventions. Results can inform future studies of behavioral interventions to promote nonsedated MRI scans. Future research should also investigate the risks associated with failed exams, both in terms of patient medical care and cost effectiveness.
Authors: Anna Weber Byars; Scott K Holland; Richard H Strawsburg; Wendy Bommer; R Scott Dunn; Vince J Schmithorst; Elena Plante Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Michael W Schlund; Michael F Cataldo; Greg J Siegle; Cecile D Ladouceur; Jennifer S Silk; Erika E Forbes; Ashley McFarland; Satish Iyengar; Ronald E Dahl; Neal D Ryan Journal: Behav Brain Funct Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 3.759
Authors: Benjamin E Yerys; Kathryn F Jankowski; Devon Shook; Lisa R Rosenberger; Kelly Anne Barnes; Madison M Berl; Eva K Ritzl; John Vanmeter; Chandan J Vaidya; William D Gaillard Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Lisa M Jacola; Doralina L Anghelescu; Lacey Hall; Kathryn Russell; Hui Zhang; Fang Wang; Joanna B Peters; Michael Rossi; Jane E Schreiber; Amar Gajjar Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 4.406