Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed methods design reveals headache prevalence and quality of life impact in pediatric neuro-oncology patients, suggesting needs for improved patient care.
Background Headaches are a frequent presenting symptom among pediatric patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumors with up to two-thirds of patients reporting this symptom at initial diagnosis. These can be ongoing throughout treatment and even beyond, but there is little known in regard the prevalence, persistence, phenotype longitudinally. There has been very little work to date to elucidate the impact of headaches on quality and functional burden in this specific patient population. Methods By using a phenomenological approach and a convergent parallel mixed methods design, we are able tocomprehensively assess symptomatology associated with headaches and response to treatments trialed. Quantitative data is being obtained by way of a previously validated and adapted questionnaire and qualitative data by way of developmentally tailored patient and parent interviews. The complementary data will be merged for interpretation to understand the phenomenon from different angles and triangulated to enhance and ensure validity. Results Initial data collection is underway with planned interim data analysis by time of conference. Through synthesis of results from both quantitative and qualitative methods and triangulation to optimize validation and minimize weakness in bias and collection, we will present results that can be utilized to inform comprehensive treatment approaches. Conclusions The need for this information is pressing an by employing these approaches simultaneously, we can obtain data at a more rapid pace, integrate the findings, and more effectively and efficiently improve patient care. This project offers the potential to gather novel information that could be used to optimize patient care strategies that improve the quality of life of children with CNS cancers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeMarsh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: