Are we meeting the training needs of healthcare and education professionals supporting children with cancer in their return to school?

Access to and experience of education for children and adolescents with cancer: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Cancer diagnosis in childhood or adolescence impacts significantly on school attendance, experience and educational outcomes. While there is longstanding recognition in clinical practice that these effects span the whole illness trajectory and continue beyond treatment completion, further clarity is required on the specific barriers and facilitators to education during cancer treatment and beyond, as well as on the experiences of children and adolescents across the full range of education settings (hospital, home, virtual, original school of enrolment), in order to determine which interventions are successful in improving access and experience from their perspective. The aim of this review is to identify what is known from the existing literature about access to and experience of education for children and adolescents with cancer during and post treatment.

METHODS

We have planned a scoping literature review searching the following databases from inception onwards: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase and Embase Classic, Web of Science Core Collection, Education Resources Index, Sociological Abstracts, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, Emcare and The Cochrane Library. In addition, DARE, conference abstracts, key journals, and institutional websites will be searched. Arksey and O'Malley's six-step process will be followed, including a consultation exercise. Studies, reports and policies from any country providing care and treatment for children and adolescents with cancer published in English will be considered eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods.

DISCUSSION

This is a timely examination given the increased incidence of childhood cancer, more intensive treatment regimens and improved survival rates for childhood cancer. The inclusion of a substantive consultation exercise with families and professionals will provide an important opportunity to examine the scoping review outputs. Findings will assist the childhood cancer community in developing a comprehensive evidence-based understanding of a significant associated bio-psychosocial impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment and will form the first step towards developing effective interventions and policies to mitigate identified detrimental effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (osf/io/yc4wt).

School and educational support programmes for paediatric oncology patients and survivors: A systematic review of evidence and recommendations for future research and practice

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.