Cited by 43Palliative and Oncologic CarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

Patient-reported Outcomes in End-of-Life Research in Pediatric Oncology

Hinds, P. S., Brandon, J., Allen, C., Hijiya, N., Newsome, R., Kane, J. R.·2007·Journal of Pediatric Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review of published literature was to identify the number and focus of empirically based papers that included research methods used to directly solicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) from pediatric oncology patients at end of life. METHODS: Key terms including "pediatric or child and oncology or cancer and end of life or palliative or hospice or dying" were used with five data bases (PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane, PsycInfo & PsycArticles, and CINAHL) for English language literature published between January, 2001 and June, 2006. All retrieved documents were independently reviewed by a panel of six (nurses, physicians, and one psychologist) with backgrounds in pediatric oncology. RESULTS: Thirty-five publications were identified but nine (25.7%) were eliminated from the analysis as they did not meet inclusion criteria. Of the remaining 26, four (15.4%) included patient-reported outcomes, six (23.1%) included parent only-reported outcomes, and five (19.2%) included staff only-reported outcomes. Nine (34.6%) were retrospective medical record reviews. Two (7.7%) included parent and record review data or parent and physician reports. CONCLUSIONS: Empirically-based end-of-life publications in pediatric oncology are relatively few in number and nearly 85% of completed studies do not include PRO.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jpepsy/jsm004

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review of empirically based end-of-life publications in pediatrics found that of 26 publications, only four (15.4%) included patient-reported outcomes, six (23.1%) included parent-only-reported outcomes, and five (19.2%) included staff-only-reported outcomes.

    “A systematic review of empirically based end of life publications in pediatrics found that of 26 publications, only four (15.4%) included patient-reported outcomes, six (23.1%) included parent only-reported outcomes, and five (19.2%) included staff only-reported outcomes.[23]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

    The review summary (p. 1) reports the stated counts and percentages among 26 eligible publications. Its scope was end-of-life research in pediatric oncology, however, not pediatrics generally as the citing sentence suggests. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Provider discomfort with palliative care conversations and misconceptions that palliative care is only beneficial when treatment is no longer effective are barriers.

    “Additional barriers include provider discomfort with palliative care conversations,[2,19,23,38,57] or misconceptions regarding palliative care as only beneficial when treatment is no longer effective[32,58,59] both of which may benefit from clarity in palliative care guidelines.[60]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics (2000). Palliative care for children. Pediatrics, 106(2), 351-357.
  2. Hinds, P. S., Burghen, E., & Pritchard, M. (in press). Challenges and their negotiated resolutions in end-oflife studies of children with cancer, Western Journal of Nursing Research.
  3. Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004). Measuring impact: A review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25 , 535-552.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hinds, P. S., Brandon, J., Allen, C., Hijiya, N., Newsome, R., & Kane, J. R.
Affiliations
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Psychology
Published
2007-04-09
Volume
32
Issue
9
Pages
1079-1088
ISSN
  • 0146-8693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-735X
OpenAlex
W2108280900
Cited by
43
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R25CA023944)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, pediatric oncology, end-of-life care, palliative care, hospice care, dying children, research methodology, parent-reported outcomes, quality of evidence
MeSH terms
Attitude to Death, Attitude to Health, Child, Humans, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, Hospice Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review