Literature DB >> 31486586

Feasibility and acceptability of an animatronic duck intervention for promoting adaptation to the in-patient setting among pediatric patients receiving treatment for cancer.

Tamara P Miller1,2, James L Klosky1,2, Fernanda Zamora1, Megan Swift1, Ann C Mertens1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During cancer treatment, children undergo potentially stressful hospitalizations and procedures. Animatronic devices are a promising means of distraction intervention. This study aimed to assess acceptability and feasibility of the My Special Aflac Duck® (MSAD) intervention among pediatric oncology patients and parents. We hypothesized that MSAD would be feasible to implement, have greater than 50% acceptance, and be useful distraction. PROCEDURES: This feasibility study enrolled oncology patients aged 3-11 years admitted to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta between May and August 2018. Patients were exposed to MSAD for 3 days and completed quantitative and qualitative assessments of acceptability. Patient and hospital data were abstracted.
RESULTS: Seventeen (80.9%) of 21 eligible patients enrolled; 64.7% were <7 years, 47% were female, 52.9% had leukemia, 41.2% had solid tumors, and 5.9% had brain tumors. Patients had 1-12 previous admissions (mean 4.8, SD 3.1) and approximately 65% were planned hospitalizations. Approximately 69% reported MSAD helped reduce in-patient distress and 93.7% were satisfied with MSAD overall. Child satisfaction was high. There were no significant differences in acceptability or satisfaction with MSAD based on age, gender, number of inpatient procedures or previous hospitalizations, or hospitalization reason. Qualitative interviews revealed patients liked expressing feelings with tokens and thought MSAD was a fun distraction.
CONCLUSIONS: MSAD implementation was feasible, and its acceptability was high among both patients and parents. MSAD shows potential as good distraction and an alternative means of communicating feelings. Future research should expand upon the effectiveness of MSAD on reducing distress.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  intervention; pediatric oncology; psychosocial; support care

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31486586      PMCID: PMC6938026          DOI: 10.1002/pbc.27984

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer        ISSN: 1545-5009            Impact factor:   3.167


  12 in total

1.  A comparison of the Faces Pain Scale and the Facial Affective Scale for children's estimates of the intensity and unpleasantness of needle pain during blood sampling.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.931

2.  Distraction intervention for preschoolers undergoing intramuscular injections and subcutaneous port access.

Authors:  Lynnda M Dahlquist; Jennifer Shroff Pendley; Donna S Landthrip; Cheri L Jones; C Philip Steuber
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Neurobehavioral side effects of corticosteroids during active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children are age-dependent: report from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium Protocol 00-01.

Authors:  Christine M Mrakotsky; Lewis B Silverman; Suzanne E Dahlberg; M Cheryl A Alyman; Stephen A Sands; Jennifer T Queally; Tamara P Miller; Amy Cranston; Donna S Neuberg; Stephen E Sallan; Deborah P Waber
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 3.167

4.  Reducing children's pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics.

Authors:  Tanya N Beran; Alex Ramirez-Serrano; Otto G Vanderkooi; Susan Kuhn
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 3.641

5.  Behavioral intervention to reduce child and parent distress during venipuncture.

Authors:  S L Manne; W H Redd; P B Jacobsen; K Gorfinkle; O Schorr; B Rapkin
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  1990-10

6.  Social Robots for Hospitalized Children.

Authors:  Deirdre E Logan; Cynthia Breazeal; Matthew S Goodwin; Sooyeon Jeong; Brianna O'Connell; Duncan Smith-Freedman; James Heathers; Peter Weinstock
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study.

Authors:  Olivier A Blanson Henkemans; Bert P B Bierman; Joris Janssen; Mark A Neerincx; Rosemarijn Looije; Hanneke van der Bosch; Jeanine A M van der Giessen
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-05-16

8.  Humanoid robotics in health care: An exploration of children's and parents' emotional reactions.

Authors:  Tanya N Beran; Alex Ramirez-Serrano; Otto G Vanderkooi; Susan Kuhn
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2013-10-18

9.  An analysis of a behavioral intervention for children undergoing venipuncture.

Authors:  S L Manne; R Bakeman; P B Jacobsen; K Gorfinkle; W H Redd
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 4.267

Review 10.  Foundations for a new science of learning.

Authors:  Andrew N Meltzoff; Patricia K Kuhl; Javier Movellan; Terrence J Sejnowski
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  1 in total

1.  Multidisciplinary Management of Medulloblastoma: Consensus, Challenges, and Controversies.

Authors:  Abhishek Chatterjee; Madan Maitre; Archya Dasgupta; Epari Sridhar; Tejpal Gupta
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.