ArticlePloS one2024
Assessment of complementary health approaches use in pediatric oncology: Modification and preliminary validation of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments Are You Using?" (WHAT) questionnaires.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveComplementary Health Approaches (CHA) are commonly used by children with cancer; however, a few health care providers (HCPs) inquire about the use of CHA. A standardized questionnaire could facilitate such clinical discussions. We aimed to adapt and determine the face and content validity of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments are you using?" (WHAT) child and parent-report questionnaires in pediatric oncology.
methodsAn electronic Delphi survey that included children with cancer (8-18 years), parents, and HCPs and CHA researchers was conducted to reach consensus on the content of the WHAT questionnaires in pediatric oncology. Children and parents from the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), and HCPs and researchers from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology and Pediatric Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research and Education Network completed the survey. To determine the face and content validity of the questionnaires, two iterative cycles of individual interviews were conducted with purposive samples of children (8-18 years), parents, and HCPs from SickKids.
resultsConsensus was reached on all domains and items of the original WHAT questionnaires after one Delphi cycle (n = 61). For face and content validity testing, the first cycle of interviews (n = 19) revealed that the questionnaires were mostly comprehensive and relevant. However, the paper-based format of the original WHAT was not user-friendly, and generic items were vague and not aimed at facilitating clinical dialogues about CHA use. The WHAT questionnaires were then modified into electronic cancer-specific self- and proxy-report questionnaires including 13 and 15 items, respectively. The second cycle (n = 21) showed no need for further changes.
conclusionsThe modified electronic cancer-specific WHAT questionnaires showed adequate face and content validity. The next step is to determine inter-rater reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of administration of the modified WHAT questionnaires in pediatric oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.