Stability and change in family psychosocial risk over 6 months in pediatric cancer and its association with medical and psychosocial healthcare utilization

Purpose: Family psychosocial risk in pediatric oncology can be assessed using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), a brief parent report screener based on the Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model (PPPHM; universal, targeted, and clinical). However, little is known about risk over the course of treatment and its association with medical and psychosocial healthcare utilization. Methods: Primary caregivers of children with cancer participated in this prospective multisite investigation, completing the PAT at diagnosis (T1; n = 396) and 6 months later (T2; n = 304). Healthcare utilization data were extracted from electronic health records. Results: The distribution of PPPHM risk levels at T1 and T2 was highly consistent for the samples. Two‐thirds of families remained at the same level of risk, 18% decreased and 16% increased risk level. Risk was not related to sociodemographic or treatment variables. The PAT risk score correlated with psychosocial contacts over the 6‐month period. Conclusions: Although the majority of families reported universal (low) risk on the PAT and were stable in their risk level over 6 months, reassessing risk is helpful in identifying those families who report higher level of risk during treatment than at diagnosis. PAT scores were related to psychosocial services that are provided to most but not all families and could be tailored more specifically to match risk and delivery of evidence‐based care.     

Linguistic Validation of the US Spanish Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire, General Health Version

INTRODUCTION: There are no measures of health-related absenteeism and presenteeism validated for use in the large and increasing US Spanish-speaking population. Before using a Spanish translation of an available English-language questionnaire, the linguistic validity of the Spanish version must be established to ensure its conceptual equivalence to the original and its cultural appropriateness. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the linguistic validity of the US Spanish version of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, General Health Version (WPAI:GH). METHODS: A US Spanish translation of the US English WPAI:GH was created through a reiterative process of creating harmonized forward and back translations by independent translators. Spanish-speaking and English-speaking subjects residing in the US self-administered the WPAI:GH in their primary language and were subsequently debriefed by a bilingual (Spanish-English) interviewer. RESULTS: US Spanish subjects (N = 31) and English subjects (N = 35), stratified equally by educational level, with and without a high school degree participated in the study. The WPAI-GH item comprehension rate was 98.6% for Spanish and 99.6% for English. Response revision rates during debriefing were 1.6% for Spanish and 0.5% for English. Responses to hypothetical scenarios indicated that both language versions adequately differentiate sick time taken for health and non-health reasons and between absenteeism and presenteeism. CONCLUSION: Linguistic validity of the US Spanish translation of the WPAI:GH was established among a diverse US Spanish-speaking population, including those with minimal education.     

Prospective comparative study of cefotetan with piperacillin for prophylaxis against infection in elective colorectal surgery

This study compared one dose of cefotetan with three doses of piperacillin as prophylaxis against wound infection in 153 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. The patients were randomized into two groups: the first received 2 g cefotetan intravenously with induction of anaesthesia (n = 75), and the second received three doses of 2 g piperacillin (n = 78). Wound infection was defined as the presence of an abscess or discharging pus from the wound. In the cefotetan group there were 14 (19%) wound infections and 13 (17%) in the piperacillin group. There were three septic deaths, one in the cefotetan group and two in the piperacillin group. Both groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, nature of pathology and pre- and perioperative risk factors. No significant haematological or biochemical abnormalities were detected. The only adverse reaction was one patient who had an allergic reaction (rash) to piperacillin. These data suggest that single-dose cefotetan is as effective as triple-dose piperacillin in prophylaxis against infection in elective colorectal surgery.