Mary A Burns1,2,3, Joanna E Fardell2,3, Claire E Wakefield2,3, Richard J Cohn2,3, Glenn M Marshall2,3, Alistair Lum2,3, Sarah J Ellis1,2,3, Barb Donnan2,3, Thomas Walwyn4,5, Amanda Carter6, Belinda Barton7, Suncica Lah1. 1. School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia. 3. School of Women's and Children's Health, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Paediatric and Adolescent Clinical Haematology and Oncology, Perth Children's Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia. 5. Division of Paediatrics, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia. 6. Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 7. Children's Hospital Education Research Institute, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Psychosocial Standards of Care (PSSC) in paediatric oncology prescribe the minimum standards for education support. It is unknown, however, if published education support programmes for children with cancer meet the PSSC standards for education support. Successful implementation of standards for education support is challenging but may be achieved with guidance. We aimed to (1) review education support programmes for childhood cancer patients and survivors against the PSSC standards and (2) provide practical recommendations for future research and implementation of education support programmes. METHODS: We searched PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Educational Resources Information and Center databases. We reviewed the education support programmes using five evaluation criteria derived from the PSSC and summarised the structure of identified programmes. We examined the features and limitations of programmes that met all evaluation criteria. RESULTS: We identified 20 education support programmes in paediatric oncology, including peer programmes (n = 3), teacher programmes (n = 5), and school re-entry programmes (SRPs n = 12). We found that three SRPs met all evaluation criteria and that SRP components were timed according to the child's position on the cancer trajectory (e.g., diagnosis and treatment, school re-entry, and follow up throughout schooling). The supporting evidence of the programmes, however, is unclear due to the lack of adequately designed studies. CONCLUSIONS: SRPs provide a promising structure for future education support programmes. We recommend strategies for developing and evaluating education support that adheres to the PSSC and adapts to international and local contexts.
OBJECTIVES: The Psychosocial Standards of Care (PSSC) in paediatric oncology prescribe the minimum standards for education support. It is unknown, however, if published education support programmes for children with cancer meet the PSSC standards for education support. Successful implementation of standards for education support is challenging but may be achieved with guidance. We aimed to (1) review education support programmes for childhood cancerpatients and survivors against the PSSC standards and (2) provide practical recommendations for future research and implementation of education support programmes. METHODS: We searched PsycINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Educational Resources Information and Center databases. We reviewed the education support programmes using five evaluation criteria derived from the PSSC and summarised the structure of identified programmes. We examined the features and limitations of programmes that met all evaluation criteria. RESULTS: We identified 20 education support programmes in paediatric oncology, including peer programmes (n = 3), teacher programmes (n = 5), and school re-entry programmes (SRPs n = 12). We found that three SRPs met all evaluation criteria and that SRP components were timed according to the child's position on the cancer trajectory (e.g., diagnosis and treatment, school re-entry, and follow up throughout schooling). The supporting evidence of the programmes, however, is unclear due to the lack of adequately designed studies. CONCLUSIONS: SRPs provide a promising structure for future education support programmes. We recommend strategies for developing and evaluating education support that adheres to the PSSC and adapts to international and local contexts.