Unmet need for interprofessional education in paediatric cancer: a scoping review

Martha Krogh Topperzer, Marianne Hoffmann, Louise Ingerslev Roug, Hanne Bækgaard Larsen, Birgitte Lausen, Kjeld Schmiegelow, Jette Led Sørensen, Martha Krogh Topperzer, Marianne Hoffmann, Louise Ingerslev Roug, Hanne Bækgaard Larsen, Birgitte Lausen, Kjeld Schmiegelow, Jette Led Sørensen

Abstract

Purpose: Despite improved treatment and care, children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer continue to die, while many of those cured are burdened by treatment-related sequelae. The best clinical management of children and adolescents with cancer depends on healthcare professionals with various skills and expertise. Complex treatment, care and rehabilitation require collaboration between healthcare professionals. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and evaluate existing interprofessional education in paediatric cancer.

Methods: We utilised the scoping review methodology and searched PubMed, Scopus and Education Resources Information Center. Inclusion criteria were postgraduate studies targeting more than one profession and evaluation of the educational intervention. We applied Kirkpatrick's modified interprofessional education outcomes model to systematise outcomes.

Results: Of 418 references, nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The design, strategy and content of all the studies were heterogeneous. None of the interprofessional educations systematically evaluated knowledge, skills, attitudes or the effects on patient outcomes or quality of care.

Conclusion: There is a lack of well-structured, interprofessional education in paediatric cancer that has undergone evaluation. Paediatric cancer may benefit from systematic education and evaluation frameworks since interprofessional education could potentially strengthen the treatment, care and rehabilitation for children and adolescents with cancer.

Keywords: Cancer; Curriculum; Evaluation; Interprofessional education; Paediatric oncology.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Search strategy and selection of studies

References

    1. Gatta G, Botta L, Rossi S, Aareleid T, Bielska-Lasota M, Clavel J, Dimitrova N, Jakab Z, Kaatsch P, Lacour B, Mallone S, Marcos-Gragera R, Minicozzi P, Sánchez-Pérez MJ, Sant M, Santaquilani M, Stiller C, Tavilla A, Trama A, Visser O, Peris-Bonet R, EUROCARE Working Group Childhood cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: results of EUROCARE-5--a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):35–47.
    1. Alexander S, Pole JD, Gibson P, Lee M, Hesser T, Chi SN, et al. Classification of treatment-related mortality in children with cancer: a systematic assessment. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):e604–e610.
    1. Anderson RA, Marshall NS. The importance of the pediatric oncologist-nurse partnership in the delivery of total care in pediatric oncology. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2000;34(4):263–264.
    1. Hjorth L, Haupt R, Skinner R, Grabow D, Byrne J, Karner S, Levitt G, Michel G, van der Pal H, Bárdi E, Beck JD, de Vathaire F, Essig S, Frey E, Garwicz S, Hawkins M, Jakab Z, Jankovic M, Kazanowska B, Kepak T, Kremer L, Lackner H, Sugden E, Terenziani M, Zaletel LZ, Kaatsch P, PanCare Network Survivorship after childhood cancer: PanCare: a European network to promote optimal long-term care. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 2015;51(10):1203–1211.
    1. Andam R, Silva M. A journey to pediatric chemotherapy competence. J Pediatr Nurs. 2008;23(4):257–268.
    1. Gibson F. Multiprofessional collaboration in children’s cancer care: believed to be a good thing but how do we know when it works well? Eur J Cancer Care. 2009;18(4):327–329.
    1. Reaman GH. Pediatric cancer research from past successes through collaboration to future transdisciplinary research. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2004;21(3):123–127.
    1. Harden RM. AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning AU. Med Teach. 2001;23(2):123–137.
    1. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(2):128–133.
    1. Morrison J. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: evaluation. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2003;326(7385):385–387.
    1. Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Chen BY. Curriculum development for medical education : a six-step approach. Baltimore: Springer Publishing Company; 2016.
    1. Freeth DH, Hammick M, Reeves S, Koppel I, Barr H. In: Effective interprofessional education: development, delivery, and evaluation. Barr H, editor. Oxford: Blackwell Wiley; 2005.
    1. Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:Cd000072.
    1. Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, McFadyen A, Rivera J, Kitto S. A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Med Teach. 2016;38(7):656–668.
    1. Pehrson C, Sorensen JL, Amer-Wahlin I. Evaluation and impact of cardiotocography training programmes: a systematic review. BJOG. 2011;118(8):926–935.
    1. Thannhauser J, Russell-Mayhew S, Scott C. Measures of interprofessional education and collaboration. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(4):336–349.
    1. Reeves S. Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: an update. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(4):405–407.
    1. Reeves S, Zwarenstein M, Goldman J, Barr H, Freeth D, Koppel I, Hammick M. The effectiveness of interprofessional education: key findings from a new systematic review. J Interprof Care. 2010;24(3):230–241.
    1. Kirkpatrick DLKJL. Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; 2006.
    1. Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D, Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education in Primary Health and Community C . Effective interprofessional education : argument, assumption & evidence. Oxford: Blackwell; 2005. p. 180 s.
    1. Brandt B, Lutfiyya MN, King JA, Chioreso C. A scoping review of interprofessional collaborative practice and education using the lens of the triple aim. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(5):393–399.
    1. Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:48.
    1. Goldman J, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S. Improving the clarity of the interprofessional field: implications for research and continuing interprofessional education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2009;29(3):151–156.
    1. Reeves S, Goldman J, Gilbert J, Tepper J, Silver I, Suter E, Zwarenstein M. A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(3):167–174.
    1. Suter E, Goldman J, Martimianakis T, Chatalalsingh C, DeMatteo DJ, Reeves S. The use of systems and organizational theories in the interprofessional field: findings from a scoping review. J Interprof Care. 2013;27(1):57–64.
    1. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.
    1. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.
    1. Adams RJ, Smart P, Huff AS. Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int J Manag Rev. 2017;19(4):432–454.
    1. Hematology/Oncology ASoP (2018) Available from: . Accessed September 2018
    1. NOPHO NSoPHaO (2018) Available from: . Accessed September 2018
    1. NOBOS NSoPON (2018) Available from: . Accessed September 2018
    1. Anderson M (2018) Available from: . Accessed September 2018
    1. Judes S (2018) Available from: . Accessed September 2018
    1. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
    1. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
    1. Sands SA, Stanley P, Charon R. Pediatric narrative oncology: interprofessional training to promote empathy, build teams, and prevent burnout. J Support Oncol. 2008;6(7):307–312.
    1. Zernikow B, Hasan C, Hechler T, Huebner B, Gordon D, Michel E. Stop the pain! A nation-wide quality improvement programme in paediatric oncology pain control. Eur J Pain. 2008;12(7):819–833.
    1. Treadwell MJ, Franck LS, Vichinsky E. Using quality improvement strategies to enhance pediatric pain assessment. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(1):39–47.
    1. Moody K, Kramer D, Santizo RO, Magro L, Wyshogrod D, Ambrosio J, et al. Helping the helpers: mindfulness training for burnout in pediatric oncology--a pilot program. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2013;30(5):275–284.
    1. Finley GA, Forgeron P, Arnaout M. Action research: developing a pediatric cancer pain program in Jordan. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2008;35(4):447–454.
    1. Bouri M, Papadatou D, Koukoutsakis P, Bitsakou P, Kafetzis D. The impact of pediatric palliative care training on the death attitudes of. Health Profession Int J Caring Sci. 2017;10(2):676–689.
    1. Di Giulio P, Arnfield A, English MW, Fitzgerald E, Kelly D, Jankovic M, et al. Collaboration between doctors and nurses in children’s cancer care: insights from a European project. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(6):745–749.
    1. Neyrinck M, Vrielink H. Apheresis training for nurses and physicians around the world. J Clin Apher. 2015;30(1):32–37.
    1. Dobrasz G, Hatfield M, Jones LM, Berdis JJ, Miller EE, Entrekin MS. Nurse-driven protocols for febrile pediatric oncology patients. J Emerg Nurs. 2013;39(3):289–295.
    1. Harden RM. Ten questions to ask when planning a course or curriculum. Med Educ. 1986;20(4):356–365.
    1. Nancarrow SA, Booth A, Ariss S, Smith T, Enderby P, Roots A. Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Hum Resour Health. 2013;11:19.
    1. Reeves S, Xyrichis A, Zwarenstein M. Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. J Interprof Care. 2018;32(1):1–3.
    1. Reeves S, Boet S, Zierler B, Kitto S. Interprofessional education and practice guide no. 3: evaluating interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(4):305–312.
    1. Hean S, Green C, Anderson E, Morris D, John C, Pitt R & O’Halloran C (2018) The contribution of theory to the design, delivery, and evaluation of interprofessional curricula: BEME guide no. 49. Med Teach 4(6):542–558. 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1432851
    1. Moreau KA. Has the new Kirkpatrick generation built a better hammer for our evaluation toolbox? Med Teach. 2017;39(9):999–1001.
    1. Deniz E. Approaches to evaluation of training: theory & practice. J Educ Technol Soc. 2002;5(2):93–98.
    1. Tamkin P, Yarnall J, Kerrin M. Kirkpatrick and beyond: a review of training evaluation, IES report 392. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies; 2002.
    1. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plann. 2004;27:341–347.
    1. Reeves S, Fletcher S, McLoughlin C, Yim A, Patel KD. Interprofessional online learning for primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016872.
    1. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. Jama. 2006;296(9):1094–1102.
    1. Cook DA, West CP. Perspective: reconsidering the focus on “outcomes research” in medical education: a cautionary note. Acad Med. 2013;88(2):162–167.
    1. Centellas KM, Smardon RE, Fifield S. Calibrating translational cancer research: collaboration without consensus in interdisciplinary laboratory meetings. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2013;39(3):311–335.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する