Puja J Umaretiya1,2,3,4,5, Anna Revette2, Anna Seo1, Yael Flamand6, Lenka Ilcisin1,2,5,7,8, Daniel J Zheng9, Smita Bhatia10, Joanne Wolfe1,3,4,5, Kira Bona1,2,3,5. 1. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poverty is associated with inferior psychosocial outcomes, higher rates of relapse, and decreased overall survival in children with cancer. Despite this, there are few evidence-based, poverty-targeted interventions and none specific to pediatric oncology. To address this gap, we developed and refined the Pediatric Cancer Resource Equity (PediCARE) intervention, a household material hardship (HMH) targeted intervention providing transportation and groceries to pediatric oncology families. METHODS: This was a single-arm pilot study conducted at a single, large, tertiary pediatric cancer center. Newly diagnosed patients with HMH-exposure were directly assigned to receive PediCARE for a total of three months. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to evaluate its acceptability and to rapidly refine the intervention. RESULTS: Nine families (100% of those approached) consented to enrollment with no attrition over the three-month study period. Families were highly satisfied with the intervention and recommended participation to others. All of the families utilized the grocery delivery component of PediCARE, and seven utilized the transportation component. Qualitative participant feedback was used to rapidly refine the intervention including logistics of intervention delivery, and dose of intervention components. CONCLUSION: PediCARE, a poverty-targeted intervention, was highly acceptable to pediatric oncology families. The intervention was refined in real-time utilizing quantitative and qualitative feedback. Next steps include intervention evaluation in a randomized, controlled feasibility study.
BACKGROUND: Poverty is associated with inferior psychosocial outcomes, higher rates of relapse, and decreased overall survival in children with cancer. Despite this, there are few evidence-based, poverty-targeted interventions and none specific to pediatric oncology. To address this gap, we developed and refined the Pediatric Cancer Resource Equity (PediCARE) intervention, a household material hardship (HMH) targeted intervention providing transportation and groceries to pediatric oncology families. METHODS: This was a single-arm pilot study conducted at a single, large, tertiary pediatric cancer center. Newly diagnosed patients with HMH-exposure were directly assigned to receive PediCARE for a total of three months. Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to evaluate its acceptability and to rapidly refine the intervention. RESULTS: Nine families (100% of those approached) consented to enrollment with no attrition over the three-month study period. Families were highly satisfied with the intervention and recommended participation to others. All of the families utilized the grocery delivery component of PediCARE, and seven utilized the transportation component. Qualitative participant feedback was used to rapidly refine the intervention including logistics of intervention delivery, and dose of intervention components. CONCLUSION: PediCARE, a poverty-targeted intervention, was highly acceptable to pediatric oncology families. The intervention was refined in real-time utilizing quantitative and qualitative feedback. Next steps include intervention evaluation in a randomized, controlled feasibility study.
Authors: Kira Bona; Traci M Blonquist; Donna S Neuberg; Lewis B Silverman; Joanne Wolfe Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Maya F Ilowite; Hasan Al-Sayegh; Clement Ma; Veronica Dussel; Abby R Rosenberg; Chris Feudtner; Tammy I Kang; Joanne Wolfe; Kira Bona Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Barbara Jones; Jennifer Currin-Mcculloch; Wendy Pelletier; Vicki Sardi-Brown; Peter Brown; Lori Wiener Journal: Soc Work Health Care Date: 2018-04
Authors: Alan Meyers; Diana Cutts; Deborah A Frank; Suzette Levenson; Anne Skalicky; Timothy Heeren; John Cook; Carol Berkowitz; Maureen Black; Patrick Casey; Nieves Zaldivar Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2005-06
Authors: E T Petridou; T N Sergentanis; C Perlepe; P Papathoma; G Tsilimidos; E Kontogeorgi; M Kourti; M Baka; M Moschovi; S Polychronopoulou; V Sidi; E Hatzipantelis; E Stiakaki; A N Iliadou; C La Vecchia; A Skalkidou; H O Adami Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Melissa Beauchemin; Sheila Judge Santacroce; Kira Bona; Ha Dang; Sarah Alexander; Kamala Allen; Crystal De Los Santos; Beth Fisher; Yudy Muñeton-Castaño; Olivia Ponce; Sarah Vargas; Aaron Sugalski; Lillian Sung; Susan Parsons Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 2.908