scholarly journals Intravenous Sedation for Control of Distress during Lumbar Punctures for Pediatric Cancer Patients

2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Ellis ◽  
Patricia McCarthy ◽  
Pierre Gosselin ◽  
William Splinter

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sedative and amnestic effects, the rapidity of recovery, and the adverse effects of midazolam and propofol for intravenous sedation. The focus of this paper is the effects of intravenous sedation on distress, the acceptability to parents of this intervention for helping their children cope with painful procedures and the utility of an intravenous sedation program administered by an anesthetist.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty six children were randomly assigned to intravenous sedation with either midazolam or propofol as the first drug received. Self-report measures of  anxiety and fear were assessed before and 30 min after the lumbar puncture (LP). Self-report of pain was also assessed 30 min post-LP. The children were videotaped during the LP, and the tapes were coded for pain and negative emotion using the Emotion Facial Action Coding System. One parent completed the acceptability questionnaire while the child was in the recovery room.RESULTS: Only three children indicated pain on the Visual Analogue Scale, and two children had facial expressions indicative of pain during the LP. Fear and anxiety differed as a function of procedure order, and children were more fearful and anxious before the first sedated LP than the second. Intravenous sedation was highly  acceptable to parents, and neither drug was considered superior.CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous sedation with either propofol or midazolam, in combination with analgesia, was effective for alleviating pain and emotional distress associated with LPs. Although children were told that the sedation would make them relaxed and sleepy, they remained somewhat fearful until they experienced a comfortable LP. The benefits of an anesthetist-administered intravenous sedation program are discussed.

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberson Tanco ◽  
Ji Chan Park ◽  
Agustina Cerana ◽  
Amy Sisson ◽  
Nikhil Sobti ◽  
...  

AbstractObjective:Caregivers of cancer patients face intense demands throughout the course of the disease, survivorship, and bereavement. Caregiver burden, needs, satisfaction, quality of life, and other significant areas of caregiving are not monitored regularly in the clinic setting, resulting in a need to address the availability and clinical effectiveness of cancer caregiver distress tools. This review aimed to determine the availability of cancer caregiver instruments, the variation of instruments between different domains of distress, and that between adult and pediatric cancer patient populations.Method:A literature search was conducted using various databases from 1937 to 2013. Original articles on instruments were extracted separately if not included in the original literature search. The instruments were divided into different areas of caregiver distress and into adult versus pediatric populations. Psychometric data were also evaluated.Results:A total of 5,541 articles were reviewed, and 135 articles (2.4%) were accepted based on our inclusion criteria. Some 59 instruments were identified, which fell into the following categories: burden (n = 26, 44%); satisfaction with healthcare delivery (n = 5, 8.5%); needs (n = 14, 23.7%); quality of life (n = 9, 15.3%); and other issues (n = 5, 8.5%). The median number of items was 29 (4–125): 20/59 instruments (33.9%) had ≤20 items; 13 (22%) had ≤20 items and were psychometrically sound, with 12 of these 13 (92.3%) being self-report questionnaires. There were 44 instruments (74.6%) that measured caregiver distress for adult cancer patients and 15 (25.4%) for caregivers of pediatric patients.Significance of results:There is a significant number of cancer caregiver instruments that are self-reported, concise, and psychometrically sound, which makes them attractive for further research into their clinical use, outcomes, and effectiveness.


2020 ◽  
Vol 232 (03) ◽  
pp. 136-142
Author(s):  
Johanne Katrin Luz ◽  
Julia Martini ◽  
Katharina Clever ◽  
Peter Herschbach ◽  
Holger Christiansen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Recent research shows that parents of children suffer from fear of progression (FoP), the fear of further disease progression. It is most possible that children also develop FoP, which could impair treatment and psychological health. The aim of this study is to adapt the adult’s version of the Fear of Progression Questionnaire – Short Form (FoP-Q-SF) for children and to examine the psychometric properties in pediatric cancer patients. Patients 32 pediatric cancer patients between 10 and 18 years with different diagnoses and in different treatment states participated in this study. Method In the cross-sectional study participants completed the adapted Fear of Progression Questionnaire – Short Form for Children (FoP-Q-SF/C) and self-report measures assessing quality of life, depression, fear and coping satisfaction. Results The questionnaire (FoP-Q-SF/C) showed adequate psychometric properties (Cronbachs α=0.86) and good results for construct validity. Significant medium to large correlations of children’s FoP was observed with quality of life (r=− 0.37), depression (r=0.52), fear (r=0.33 – 0.76), and satisfaction with coping (r=− 0.44). One-fifth of the sample was classified as having high FoP with values over 37. Conclusions The FoP-Q-SF/C is a short, economic questionnaire that is applicable in children with cancer. Clinicians can use the questionnaire to explore specific fear and the need for psychosocial support. Further research for specific treatment approaches for FoP in pediatric cancer patients are warranted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-72
Author(s):  
Anne Choquette ◽  
Araby Sivananthan ◽  
Annie Guillemette ◽  
Erin O'Shaughnessy ◽  
Martha Pinheiro-Maltez ◽  
...  

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continue to negatively influence the quality of life of both adult and pediatric cancer patients (Dupuis et al., 2010; Farrell et al., 2013; Russo et al., 2014; Hinds et al., 2009; Sommariva et al., 2016). Vomiting and retching are symptoms that can be assessed objectively while nausea, a subjective symptom, is more difficult to quantify. Adult cancer patients can usually describe the severity of the nausea they feel using self-report visual analog or adjectival rating scales. Instruments such as the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (available from www.mascc.org) have been validated for this purpose and are recommended by experts in the field (Hesketh et al., 2015).


2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Cooper ◽  
Adam M. Perkins ◽  
Philip J. Corr

Abstract. Recent revisions to the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) of personality have highlighted the distinction between the emotions of fear and anxiety. These revisions have substantial implications for self-report measurement; in particular, they raise the question of whether separate traits of fear and anxiety exist and, if so, their interrelationship. To address this question, the current study used confirmatory factor analytic procedures to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of measures of trait anxiety, fear, and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS). We also examined measurement and structural invariance across gender in 167 males and 173 females who completed the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Carver and White BIS Scale, and the Fear Survey Schedule (FSS). The findings suggested that trait anxiety and the BIS scale are relatively distinct from Tissue Damage Fear (FSS). Further, the final model showed measurement and structural invariance across gender. The implications of the results for future self-report assessment in RST research are discussed.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fransisca M. Sidabutar ◽  
Anggie Regia Anandari ◽  
Ingrid Karli ◽  
Yusnita Katagori ◽  
Henny E. Wirawan

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret M. Mannix ◽  
Nicole Furnari ◽  
Adam Rudolph ◽  
Karen M. Moody

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara O. Rothbaum ◽  
Larry F. Hodges ◽  
Jonathan Gershon ◽  
Michael Briones ◽  
Melissa Pickering

2012 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. S17 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Al Jaouni ◽  
A. Hussein ◽  
M. Al Muhayawi ◽  
K. Ibrahim ◽  
I. Elfiki

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document