Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2019

Open Access 01-10-2019 | Review Article

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

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

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 10/2019

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
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 (2014) Childhood cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: results of EUROCARE-5--a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 15(1):35–47CrossRefPubMed
2.
Alexander S, Pole JD, Gibson P, Lee M, Hesser T, Chi SN et al (2015) Classification of treatment-related mortality in children with cancer: a systematic assessment. Lancet Oncol 16(16):e604–e610CrossRefPubMed
3.
Anderson RA, Marshall NS (2000) The importance of the pediatric oncologist-nurse partnership in the delivery of total care in pediatric oncology. Med Pediatr Oncol 34(4):263–264CrossRefPubMed
4.
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 (2015) Survivorship after childhood cancer: PanCare: a European network to promote optimal long-term care. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 51(10):1203–1211CrossRef
5.
Andam R, Silva M (2008) A journey to pediatric chemotherapy competence. J Pediatr Nurs 23(4):257–268CrossRefPubMed
6.
Gibson F (2009) 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 18(4):327–329CrossRef
7.
Reaman GH (2004) Pediatric cancer research from past successes through collaboration to future transdisciplinary research. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 21(3):123–127CrossRefPubMed
8.
Harden RM (2001) AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: a tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning AU. Med Teach 23(2):123–137CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG (2008) Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ 42(2):128–133CrossRefPubMed
10.
Morrison J (2003) ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: evaluation. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 326(7385):385–387CrossRef
11.
Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Chen BY (2016) Curriculum development for medical education : a six-step approach. Springer Publishing Company, Baltimore
12.
Freeth DH, Hammick M, Reeves S, Koppel I, Barr H (2005) In: Barr H (ed) Effective interprofessional education: development, delivery, and evaluation. Blackwell Wiley, OxfordCrossRef
13.
Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M (2017) Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:Cd000072PubMed
14.
Reeves S, Fletcher S, Barr H, Birch I, Boet S, Davies N, McFadyen A, Rivera J, Kitto S (2016) A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39. Med Teach 38(7):656–668CrossRefPubMed
15.
Pehrson C, Sorensen JL, Amer-Wahlin I (2011) Evaluation and impact of cardiotocography training programmes: a systematic review. BJOG 118(8):926–935CrossRefPubMed
16.
Thannhauser J, Russell-Mayhew S, Scott C (2010) Measures of interprofessional education and collaboration. J Interprof Care 24(4):336–349CrossRefPubMed
17.
Reeves S (2016) Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: an update. J Interprof Care 30(4):405–407CrossRefPubMed
18.
Reeves S, Zwarenstein M, Goldman J, Barr H, Freeth D, Koppel I, Hammick M (2010) The effectiveness of interprofessional education: key findings from a new systematic review. J Interprof Care 24(3):230–241CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kirkpatrick DLKJL (2006) Evaluating training programs. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco
20.
Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D, Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education in Primary Health and Community C (2005) Effective interprofessional education : argument, assumption & evidence, vol xxiv. Blackwell, Oxford, p 180 sCrossRef
21.
Brandt B, Lutfiyya MN, King JA, Chioreso C (2014) A scoping review of interprofessional collaborative practice and education using the lens of the triple aim. J Interprof Care 28(5):393–399CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ (2013) Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:48CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Goldman J, Zwarenstein M, Bhattacharyya O, Reeves S (2009) Improving the clarity of the interprofessional field: implications for research and continuing interprofessional education. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 29(3):151–156CrossRef
24.
Reeves S, Goldman J, Gilbert J, Tepper J, Silver I, Suter E, Zwarenstein M (2011) A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. J Interprof Care 25(3):167–174CrossRefPubMed
25.
Suter E, Goldman J, Martimianakis T, Chatalalsingh C, DeMatteo DJ, Reeves S (2013) The use of systems and organizational theories in the interprofessional field: findings from a scoping review. J Interprof Care 27(1):57–64CrossRefPubMed
26.
Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19–32CrossRef
27.
Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J 26(2):91–108CrossRef
28.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):e1–e34CrossRefPubMed
29.
Adams RJ, Smart P, Huff AS (2017) Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. Int J Manag Rev 19(4):432–454CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Sands SA, Stanley P, Charon R (2008) Pediatric narrative oncology: interprofessional training to promote empathy, build teams, and prevent burnout. J Support Oncol 6(7):307–312PubMed
38.
Zernikow B, Hasan C, Hechler T, Huebner B, Gordon D, Michel E (2008) Stop the pain! A nation-wide quality improvement programme in paediatric oncology pain control. Eur J Pain 12(7):819–833CrossRefPubMed
39.
Treadwell MJ, Franck LS, Vichinsky E (2002) Using quality improvement strategies to enhance pediatric pain assessment. Int J Qual Health Care 14(1):39–47CrossRefPubMed
40.
Moody K, Kramer D, Santizo RO, Magro L, Wyshogrod D, Ambrosio J et al (2013) Helping the helpers: mindfulness training for burnout in pediatric oncology--a pilot program. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 30(5):275–284CrossRefPubMed
41.
Finley GA, Forgeron P, Arnaout M (2008) Action research: developing a pediatric cancer pain program in Jordan. J Pain Symptom Manag 35(4):447–454CrossRef
42.
Bouri M, Papadatou D, Koukoutsakis P, Bitsakou P, Kafetzis D (2017) The impact of pediatric palliative care training on the death attitudes of. Health Profession Int J Caring Sci 10(2):676–689
43.
Di Giulio P, Arnfield A, English MW, Fitzgerald E, Kelly D, Jankovic M et al (2013) Collaboration between doctors and nurses in children’s cancer care: insights from a European project. Eur J Oncol Nurs 17(6):745–749CrossRefPubMed
44.
Neyrinck M, Vrielink H (2015) Apheresis training for nurses and physicians around the world. J Clin Apher 30(1):32–37CrossRefPubMed
45.
Dobrasz G, Hatfield M, Jones LM, Berdis JJ, Miller EE, Entrekin MS (2013) Nurse-driven protocols for febrile pediatric oncology patients. J Emerg Nurs 39(3):289–295CrossRefPubMed
46.
Harden RM (1986) Ten questions to ask when planning a course or curriculum. Med Educ 20(4):356–365CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Reeves S, Xyrichis A, Zwarenstein M (2018) Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. J Interprof Care 32(1):1–3CrossRefPubMed
49.
Reeves S, Boet S, Zierler B, Kitto S (2015) Interprofessional education and practice guide no. 3: evaluating interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 29(4):305–312CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Moreau KA (2017) Has the new Kirkpatrick generation built a better hammer for our evaluation toolbox? Med Teach 39(9):999–1001PubMed
52.
Deniz E (2002) Approaches to evaluation of training: theory & practice. J Educ Technol Soc 5(2):93–98
53.
Tamkin P, Yarnall J, Kerrin M (2002) Kirkpatrick and beyond: a review of training evaluation, IES report 392. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton
54.
Bates R (2004) A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plann 27:341–347CrossRef
55.
Reeves S, Fletcher S, McLoughlin C, Yim A, Patel KD (2017) Interprofessional online learning for primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review. BMJ Open 7(8):e016872CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L (2006) Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. Jama. 296(9):1094–1102CrossRefPubMed
57.
Cook DA, West CP (2013) Perspective: reconsidering the focus on “outcomes research” in medical education: a cautionary note. Acad Med 88(2):162–167CrossRefPubMed
58.
Centellas KM, Smardon RE, Fifield S (2013) Calibrating translational cancer research: collaboration without consensus in interdisciplinary laboratory meetings. Sci Technol Hum Values 39(3):311–335CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Unmet need for interprofessional education in paediatric cancer: a scoping review
Authors
Martha Krogh Topperzer
Marianne Hoffmann
Louise Ingerslev Roug
Hanne Bækgaard Larsen
Birgitte Lausen
Kjeld Schmiegelow
Jette Led Sørensen
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04856-4

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

Supportive Care in Cancer 10/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Effectiveness of exercise-based rehabilitation on functional capacity and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemo-radiotherapy

Special Article

The pathogenesis of mucositis: updated perspectives and emerging targets

Original Article

Cost-utility analysis of aprepitant for patients who truly need it in Japan

Review Article

Psychological aspects, risk and protective factors related to BRCA genetic testing: a review of the literature

Original Article

A feasibility study examining the impact of yoga on psychosocial health and symptoms in pediatric outpatients receiving chemotherapy

Correction

Correction to: Priorities of a “good death” according to cancer patients, their family caregivers, physicians, and the general population: a nationwide survey
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits