A viable alternative to a meta-analysis for qualitative and mixed methods studies is a n

Palliat Med. 2020 Jun; 34(6): 689–707.

Katie Greenfield,1 Simone Holley,1 Daniel E Schoth,1 Emily Harrop,2,3 Richard F Howard,4 Julie Bayliss,5 Lynda Brook,6 Satbir S Jassal,7 Margaret Johnson,8 Ian Wong,9 and Christina Liossi1,10

Abstract

Background:

Symptom management for infants, children and young people at end of life is complex and challenging due to the range of conditions and differing care needs of individuals of different ages. A greater understanding of these challenges could inform the development of effective interventions.

Aim:

To investigate the barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end of life.

Design:

A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019124797).

Data sources:

The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey were electronically searched from the inception of each database for qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that included data from patients, carers or healthcare professionals referring to barriers or facilitators to paediatric end-of-life symptom management. Studies underwent data extraction, quality appraisal, narrative thematic synthesis and meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 64 studies were included (32 quantitative, 18 qualitative and 14 mixed-methods) of medium-low quality. Themes were generated encompassing barriers/facilitators experienced by carers (treatment efficacy, treatment side effects, healthcare professionals’ attitudes, hospice care, home care, families’ symptom management strategies) and healthcare professionals (medicine access, treatment efficacy, healthcare professionals’ demographics, treatment side effects, specialist support, healthcare professionals’ training, health services delivery, home care). Only one study included patients’ views.

Conclusion:

There is a need for effective communication between healthcare professionals and families, more training for healthcare professionals, improved symptom management planning including anticipatory prescribing, and urgent attention paid to the patients’ perspective.

Keywords: Child, paediatrics, palliative care, terminal care, pain management, caregivers, systematic review, meta-analysis

What is already known about the topic?

• The palliative care needs of infants, children and young people differ to those of adults.

• The broad spectrum of paediatric life-limiting or life-threatening conditions mean that symptoms are varied and complex to manage.

• The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has emphasised pain management in paediatric palliative care as a research priority.

What this paper adds?

• This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate and report on the barriers and facilitators experienced by carers and healthcare professionals when managing paediatric symptoms at end of life.

• Healthcare professionals’ attitudes, treatment and its side effects, place of care and families’ own symptom management strategies all impact on family caregivers’ ability to manage symptoms.

• Barriers and facilitators to symptom management for healthcare professionals include medicine access, treatment efficacy and side effects, specialist support, training and education, health services delivery and home care.

Implications for practice, theory or policy

• This review provides information about ways to improve paediatric symptom management at end of life.

• Effective communication between healthcare professionals and families, increased healthcare professional training and better symptom management planning are needed to improve pain and symptom management.

• There is an urgent need for more research on paediatric patients’ views on end-of-life symptom management.

Introduction

It is estimated that nearly 1.2 million children worldwide require palliative care at end of life1 while nearly 50,000 infants, children and young people in the United Kingdom and 500,000 in the United States live with a life-threatening or life-limiting condition.2,3 The broad spectrum of these conditions and the differing palliative care needs of children compared to adults means that symptoms are varied and complex to manage.4 Effective symptom management differs significantly in children depending on their age, diagnosis, physiological and cognitive developmental stage and their ability to communicate and understand.5

There is a lack of research on family carers’ experiences of administering medicines for symptom and pain management in this population. Caregivers may not have the required knowledge and confidence to provide adequate symptom relief while also minimising side effects such as sedation. Fear of errors may lead to insufficient or inappropriate doses of analgesics.6 As such, parents will move children away from their preferred place of care if effective symptom relief cannot be provided.7 Healthcare professionals also describe home paediatric palliative care as ‘difficult, complex and ambiguous’8 suggesting that they may lack the skills and training required to support carers.

A clinical practice guideline from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on end-of-life care for children was based on the findings of 20 systematic reviews.9 Four of these assessed the effectiveness of interventions for agitation, respiratory distress, seizures and pain management.9 Only the latter review found any studies that met the inclusion criteria and these involved pharmacological interventions only. Although these reviews provided essential guidance, to our knowledge, no systematic review has examined the barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life. NICE emphasised pain management in palliative care as a research priority and recommended further research on the factors influencing preferred place of end-of-life care, hypothesising that symptom management plays a critical role in this decision.9 A greater understanding of this could inform the design of evidence-based interventions to support more effective symptom management, thereby improving care for children and their families. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise the existing literature exploring barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, family carers and healthcare professionals when managing paediatric symptoms at end of life.

Methods

A detailed description of the searches (Supplementary File 1) and quality assessment for this systematic review is included in the published protocol10 and registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42019124797).11 Study exclusion and inclusion criteria are shown in Table 1 and the flow diagram of the included studies is shown in Figure 1.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Flow of records for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analyses of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life.

Data synthesis

The majority of included studies were either qualitative, mixed-methods or involved a quantitative survey, as opposed to an intervention design. A narrative summary approach was taken as this allowed the integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Since qualitative data were relatively thin, a thematic synthesis approach to our narrative summary was conducted, enabling the identification and organisation of the data into prominent themes as per our protocol.10 K.G. and S.H. independently read the studies and extracted relevant findings into NVivo.12 After data familiarisation, they generated initial codes with written interpretations of quantitative data coded in the same way as qualitative data, for example, if a study reported that half of the nurses surveyed reported a lack of training in pain relief, this was coded under a theme on healthcare professionals’ training.13 The two authors discussed and compared codes and emerging themes, with successive independent re-reading of the studies and data. Over several discussions, K.G. and S.H. developed and refined common themes from the codes for patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals separately. The papers were then re-read by both reviewers to check the data fitted the codes and to check for any relevant uncoded data. There is currently no recommended approach for assessing confidence in combined qualitative and quantitative evidence.14 However, since we used an integrated design, in which quantitative data were transformed into qualitative data (themes), the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research)15 was used to summarise confidence in each theme.

Meta-analytic methods

A meta-analysis was chosen to synthesise and summarise the quantitative data and identify any barriers or facilitators arising from these data. The outcome for meta-analysis was the proportion of participants endorsing or reporting each specific facilitator/barrier. Data had to be available from two or more eligible studies reporting similar barriers or facilitators for meta-analyses to be conducted. For each survey item data pertaining to (1) the number of participants endorsing or reporting that barrier or facilitator and (2) the total number of valid survey responses was extracted. If data were only given in percentages, the raw values (i.e. number of participants endorsing each response) were computed. If studies divided participants into subgroups (e.g. by gender or career stage), the data were re-aggregated. The exact question asked, possible responses (where included in the original article) and raw data are provided in Supplementary File 2. Where data were available, we computed the crude unweighted mean proportion of agreement. We then used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 316 to compute a pooled weighted estimate using a random-effects model since this can be used when statistical heterogeneity (I2) is present. Cochran’s Q and the I2 statistic were used to assess study heterogeneity. With Cochran’s Q, a significant result is indicative of heterogeneity. The I2 statistic describes the percentage of variability in effect estimates due to heterogeneity as opposed to sampling error.17

Results

Study selection

The titles and abstracts of 31,789 articles were reviewed by one reviewer (K.G.) and a random 20% were checked by a second reviewer (S.H.), with high inter-coder agreement (0.99 Cohen’s kappa coefficient). After discussion, 341 full-texts were read and 277 were excluded (see Figure 1 for reasons). The final review included 64 eligible studies, which included 32 quantitative studies, 18 qualitative studies and 14 mixed-methods studies (see Table 2 for study characteristics).

Table 2.

Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review.

Study appraisal

The majority of the included studies were of low/moderate quality (see Supplementary File 3). Trustworthiness82 of qualitative studies was rated as high in 11, medium in 6 and low in 4 studies. Inter-coder agreement was 0.72, 0.80 and 0.25 Cohen’s kappa coefficient for the qualitative, mixed-methods and quantitative studies, respectively. Low inter-rater reliability for the quantitative studies was due to different interpretation of one question (E1) on the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (QATQS)83 regarding the criteria for assessing the validity of questionnaires. Once the interpretation of this item was discussed and agreed, the studies were reassessed on this item giving an overall inter-rater reliability for the QATQS of 0.90 Cohen’s kappa coefficient.

Confidence in the evidence (the themes) was assessed using the GRADE-CERQual (Supplementary File 4). For the majority of the evidence, confidence was reduced due to moderate–substantial methodological limitations (insufficient detail on data collection and analysis and validity and reliability of quantitative data collection tools).

Thematic analysis

The thematic analysis produced six key themes relating to family carers’ views and eight themes relating to healthcare professionals’ views on barriers or facilitators to symptom management. Only one included study involved children’s views. A summary is presented in Supplementary File 5.

Barriers and facilitators to symptom management reported by family carers

Giving treatment

Giving adequate medication was, unsurprisingly, seen as beneficial in improving or managing children’s symptoms.41,45,53,62,63,75,78 One study highlighted the importance of free medication for providing adequate pain control.68 In several studies, parents stated that children were not given sufficient medication or treatment therefore leading to poor symptom management (Supplementary File 5, quotation 1 (Q1)),29,30 particularly when a child’s condition deteriorated;61 he or she developed complications;61,73 or when there was a lack of available drugs licensed for children.61 Inadequate assistance with administering or managing treatment was a barrier to symptom management in two studies.55,57 Some families also felt the assessment of their child’s emotional symptoms was not properly met,50 suggesting that they were not sufficiently treated either.

Treatment side effects

Parents made decisions not to use medication aimed at treating symptoms, due to the drugs’ side effects. In one study, for example, parents turned down a doctor’s suggestion for chemotherapy as they did not want their child to be sick and miserable (Q7).62 The only study involving patient interviews included a 14 years old who had decided to stop taking oral morphine due to nausea, despite the ‘burning pain’ she experienced.68

When new symptoms appeared, parents had to decide between leaving these untreated or risking new or worsened side effects.73 One study also reported a parent’s view that healthcare professionals did not treat their child’s pain due to fear of symptoms from the medication (Q8).79 Some parents chose perceived quality of life (QoL) over pain relief, delayed the start of pain medication so their child could play, assuming that they would only sleep if treatment was given.73 However, our review also suggests that parents will expose their child to side effects if they feel this is beneficial overall. In one study, for example, a minority of parents mentioned very low QoL with little chance for improvement as a reason for starting pain relief medication that could lead to or hasten death.80

Healthcare professionals’ attitudes

Parents’ perception of symptom management is influenced by healthcare professional’s attitudes towards them and their children.29,30,41,48,61,62,66,75,78 Parents felt healthcare professionals were dismissive of symptoms such as constipation48 or did not take their concerns about inadequate pain relief seriously (Q10).29 They discuss having to convince healthcare professionals to give pain medication or other treatment.62 Lack of involvement in the child’s care (as reported by parents) by an oncologist was associated with more suffering from pain.78

Inadequate communication from healthcare professionals was also a barrier to symptom management. One study described how parents wished hospital staff had communicated sooner that pain doctors were available (Q11).30 In another, children’s pain was associated with parents’ perception of receiving conflicting information from healthcare professionals.78

In contrast, when healthcare professionals were seen as vigilant and attentive, this was perceived to have a beneficial impact on symptom management. This included anticipating the child’s needs,41,61 treating parents as active members of the child’s care team, being honest with them (Q12),29 listening to parents29 and the child (Q14),62 and placing a high priority on symptom relief.66 Several studies38,57,75 reported that advice or information from healthcare professionals facilitated symptom management. For example, a father in one study discussed how he was initially concerned that his baby would only be treated for pain; however, the paediatric palliative care team explained that other potential symptoms could be managed (Q15).75

Influence of hospice care

In several studies, families described how the hospice environment was helpful for controlling children’s pain and other symptoms.31,66,70 Families valued the emphasis on symptom relief at the hospice (as opposed to a focus on interventions to manage the child’s condition) and the staff’s experience with rare conditions and complex symptom clusters.66

However, one study conducted in the United States found that Spanish-speaking families viewed the hospice as a facilitator to symptom management (Q16); yet English-speaking families returned to hospital care due to poor symptom control.70 The authors suggest this could be due to Spanish-speaking families prioritising place of care (at home or at the hospice as opposed to the hospital) over pain control, while the English-speaking families’ main priority was pain and symptom relief. In another study, parents noted that the hospice did not know how to control the pain, but they were unable to access a hospital pain team because the child was not an inpatient.29

Care and support at home

A number of studies highlighted barriers to symptom management for children being looked after at home.28,31,65 Parents feared that their child might not receive medical treatment,31 and that symptoms would not be controlled.45,81 One study noted a parent’s fear that they would make their child worse if they accidentally gave too much medication (Q17).74 Several studies noted that parents reported a lack of information, knowledge and support around pain control and symptom management (Q20, Q21).48,55,57,68

When parents did receive information, advice or education from healthcare professionals or disease-specific organisations, this was seen to facilitate symptom management.41,48,62 In one study, the child’s suffering was not worse in children being cared for at home and receiving specialised paediatric palliative care compared to those being cared for in hospital.37 However, parents in another study emphasised that they had learnt to control their child’s symptoms ‘on their own’; yet some still struggled when their child’s disease progressed or when complications occurred.73

Other barriers to symptom management at home included a lack of access to support in the form of home visits from healthcare professionals38,49 or 24-hour support.50,56 Community nurses were viewed as facilitating symptom management by providing complex care at home such as the preparation of pain relief (Q22).56 One parent noted the importance of having a regular nurse to help with home care, who had knowledge of their child’s specific symptoms (Q23).56

Availability of resources at home also affected symptom management. Parents reported having to wait for, or locate, prescribed medication after leaving hospital or having to coordinate care from different agencies.62 In one study, children were admitted to hospital due to limited availability of equipment at home.65 In other studies, healthcare professionals supported parents by arranging the necessary equipment (Q24).56,61 In a study conducted in India, some parents noted they were not able to administer enough medication to control pain at home and they also had difficulties in using or accessing hospital services due to cost and transportation barriers.49

Caregiver mental wellbeing may also influence symptom management at home. Byrne and colleagues found that self-efficacy to manage children’s pain was negatively associated with higher parental strain and negative mood and positively associated with higher parental vigour.26 While this suggests that parental mood and strain could impact on pain management, this study cannot demonstrate causality.

Families’ symptom management strategies

Several studies reported that families carried out a number of non-pharmacological symptom management strategies. One study described how parents worked constantly to reduce, relieve or prevent symptoms.73 In another study, mothers assessed their child’s pain by asking them using a pain level tool (0–10) to determine the extent of their pain before deciding on suitable symptom management.49

Placing the child in different positions to avoid issues such as skin breakdown and pain was noted as a symptom prevention strategy (Q27)41 as were distraction techniques such as reading, singing and talking to the child41,49 and encouraging and motivating children to fight their pain.49 In India, parents used non-pharmacological treatments such as kencur (i.e., Kaempferia galanga, also known as aramotic ginger) or eucalyptus oil or massages to help eliminate their child’s pain.49 Parents felt they helped relieve their child’s symptoms by staying close to them and providing physical comfort.41,49,62 Healthcare professionals staying close to the child was also viewed as helpful by parents.62 In addition, some parents chose to keep their child out of day care to minimise the risk of infection.73 Parents described feeling overwhelmed by the decisions they had to make around preventing or reducing symptoms and balancing this with the need for the child to have ‘a life worth living’.73

Barriers and facilitators to symptom management reported by healthcare professionals

Access to medicines

A lack of access to medicines and resources was noted as a barrier to providing care in four studies (Q28).20,47,58,60 Three of these were conducted in low-income countries where medical care access is limited for economic reasons; however, one study was based in the United Kingdom.60 It was not clear whether the lack of access in this instance was financial or logistical.

Treatment efficacy

Healthcare professionals in several studies reported children experiencing pain and other symptoms.37 In some cases, this was linked to inadequate pain control59 or not addressing emotional symptoms,50 although the reasons for this were not identified. In a case review, Klepping44 describes a teenage boy whose pain was worsened by events around him (such as the presence of certain family members), which appeared to impede the effectiveness of medication.

Age and gender of healthcare professionals

Two studies found that male healthcare professionals had greater confidence or comfort in managing symptoms compared to female healthcare professionals.33,36 The authors in these studies suggested this could be due to differing perceptions of comfort36 or differences in self-reporting confidence.33 Older healthcare professionals were also more confident in managing symptoms,33 which could be linked to greater experience, self-report differences or accumulating life experiences.33 Physicians and nurses reported greater expertise in managing symptoms compared to psychosocial staff.39 The reasons for this were not described.

Treatment side effects

Healthcare professionals’ concerns about side effects of treatment can be a barrier to symptom management when decisions are made not to administer medication. In several studies, fears of addiction, sedation, respiratory depression or hastening death were identified as potential barriers to treatment (Q30).34,43,47 Balancing the need for symptom relief with the risk of these side effects was a difficult decision for some healthcare professionals.80 However, side effects were not always barriers but rather acted as facilitators to seeking alternative symptom management – one study reported a patient’s preference for the side effect (drowsiness) as opposed to being in pain.44,80

Specialist advice and support

In a number of studies, healthcare professionals stated that access to specialist support, for example, from a paediatric palliative care team, would be favourable for paediatric symptom management.24,35,54,77 In three studies, healthcare professionals had access to either a specialist paediatric palliative care team or support from other colleagues, and this was viewed as beneficial for effective symptom management.52,67,76 In one study, the involvement of a palliative care team was delayed by physicians, who were concerned about families readiness for palliative care, the association of ‘palliative’ with ‘death’ and the fear of negatively impacting the physician–family relationship.67

Healthcare professional education, training, knowledge and experience

In a number of studies, healthcare professional’s education, training, knowledge and/or experience were seen as barriers or facilitators to symptom management. Only one study appeared to indicate that the majority of healthcare professionals felt they had sufficient knowledge to manage symptoms at end of life.34 Healthcare professionals reported having inadequate training, education or support to manage symptoms in children at end of life, and that they would value further training.19–21,25,32,43,46,51,54,58,59,64,76 In one study, the barriers to obtaining the necessary education or training included a lack of opportunities, time and costs.34 Fowler et al.36 found that healthcare professionals with formal training were more likely to feel comfortable treating pain and psychological issues.

Healthcare professionals described feeling inexperienced to manage symptoms.30,39 In two studies, healthcare professionals felt this resulted from the ‘low volume’ of patients they encountered with complicated pain problems.34,39 In line with this, healthcare professionals with more experience reported greater confidence in treating pain33 and this was associated with less fatigue in children.71

A lack of experience or exposure to certain conditions meant that healthcare professionals voiced difficulties in managing rare and/or progressive conditions48 and in recognising and treating symptoms35,52 sometimes due to a lack of guidance or evidence (Q34, Q35).48 Studies found improvements in healthcare professionals’ comfort, confidence or knowledge following training or education aimed at improving end-of-life symptom management.21–23,27 In one study in Uganda, a healthcare professional noted that a myth had existed that children do not experience pain. Training had enabled the healthcare professional to appreciate that this was untrue and therefore that pain can be assessed and managed (Q36).20 Another study found that paediatric residents’ self-reported knowledge and comfort in end-of-life symptom management increased after the introduction of a Paediatric End-of-Life Care Management Reference Card.22

Delivery of health services

This theme encompasses the working practices utilised by healthcare professionals, how decisions are made and how care is planned. It includes how healthcare professionals collaborate within teams and with families. The benefits of well-planned, interdisciplinary decision-making and symptom management were reported in one study,50 whereas another identified these as areas that needed attention, along with the lack of standardisation of care and symptom control.24 In another study, general practitioners (GPs) providing home-based palliative care reported receiving insufficient information from the hospital about symptoms and difficulties during the palliative phase.72 Similarly, after a review of patient cases, Houlahan and colleagues43 identified barriers including a lack of available physicians as reported by nurses, difficulty in obtaining orders for medication and delays in obtaining medication from pharmacy.

Disagreement and conflict about treatment decisions and goals were identified as other symptom management barriers. Conflict (about treatment) between healthcare professionals and families was noted in three studies,32,35,60,77 as well as disagreement among healthcare professionals (Q37)19,35 and among families.77

Factors relating to care at home

One study conducted a survey on pain management in Canadian paediatric cancer centres.34 The authors note the difficulties encountered by healthcare professionals in these areas including a lack of infrastructure for effective and timely links between the cancer centre, community and the family. The need for parent and home care nurse education around pain assessment and management was also highlighted. In a study conducted in Tanzania,47 the hospital was reported by healthcare professionals as the best place for care due to the lack of equipment at home (Q39). In another study, adequate pain control and symptom management were noted as difficult due to lack of communication between hospital and community staff.72

Meta-analysis

Meta-analyses were run on six barriers/facilitators, four of which corresponded to the themes developed through the thematic analysis. Forest plots are shown in Supplementary File 6, and overall effect sizes are shown in Figure 2.

Overall weighted pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life.

Squares represent the barrier/facilitator weighting with horizontal lines representing the corresponding 95% CIs.

Barriers and facilitators to symptom management reported by family carers

Three studies53,75,78 that asked families about pain management facilitators found that giving treatment (usually pharmacological though this was not always specified) was helpful. This was reported by between 27% and 84% of participants (crude unweighted mean: 0.645, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.278–1.011). Meta-analysis (Analysis 1) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.672 (k = 3, n = 197, 95% CI = 0.231–0.933), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 53.06, df = 2, p < 0.001, I2 = 96.23). A further meta-analysis (Analysis 2) on studies that surveyed families about symptom management in general (not just pain)53,62,63,75,78 found that treatment was again reported as a facilitator (crude unweighted mean = 0.541, 95% CI = 0.342–0.739). The pooled weighted estimate was 0.545 (k = 5, n = 295, 95% CI: 0.328–0.746), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 47.77, df = 4, p < 0.001, I2 = 91.63).

Three studies included survey items about the effect of caring for a child at home on symptom management.28,31,65 This was reported as a barrier by between 22% and 24% of participants (crude unweighted mean: 0.238, 95% CI: 0.077–0.399). Meta-analysis (Analysis 3) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.244 (k = 3, n = 197, 95% CI = 0.177–0.326), without significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 0.06, df = 2, p = 0.969, I2 = 0.00).

Two studies38,57 reported that advice or information facilitated symptom management for between 86% and 93% of participants (crude unweighted mean: 0.894, 95% CI: 0.818–0.971). Meta-analysis (Analysis 4) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.865 (k = 2, n = 84, 95% CI = 0.773–0.924), without significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 0.63, df = 1, p = 0.428, I2 = 0.00).

A lack of assistance with administering or managing treatment was reported as a barrier to symptom management in two studies55,57 by between 84% and 87% of participants (crude unweighted mean: 0.857, 95% CI: 0.825–0.888). Meta-analysis (Analysis 5) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.860 (k = 2, n = 179, 95% CI = 0.800–0.903), without significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 0.36, df = 1, p = 0.547, I2 = 0.00).

Barriers and facilitators to symptom management reported by healthcare professionals

Inadequate training, education or support to manage symptoms in children at end of life was a barrier to pain management reported by between 0% and 61.9% of participants in seven studies25,30,32,36,39,42,64 (crude unweighted mean: 0.316, 95% CI: 0.131–0.450). Meta-analysis (Analysis 6) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.312 (k = 7, n = 2317, 95% CI = 0.210–0.436), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 147.410, df = 6, p < 0.0001, I2 = 95.93). Perceived lack of confidence or support was considerably lower in studies that only surveyed paediatric oncologists36,42,43 as opposed to nurses or other physicians. A further analysis was run after excluding these studies. The crude unweighted mean was 0.414 (95% CI: 0.258–0.570) and the pooled weighted estimate (Analysis 7) was 0.393 (k = 5, n = 1474, 95% CI: 0.321–0.471), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 30.693, df = 5, p < 0.001, I2 = 83.71).

Nine studies surveyed healthcare professionals on the extent that they lacked education, training, knowledge or experience in paediatric symptom management in general (including, but not limited to, pain) at end of life.25,30,32,36,39,42,43,64,76 Again, this was reported by between 0% and 61.9% of participants (crude unweighted mean: 0.346, 95% CI: 0.206–0.486). Meta-analysis (Analysis 8) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.336 (k = 9, n = 2412, 95% CI: 0.244–0.443), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 142.56, df = 8, p < 0.001, I2 = 94.39). After excluding studies that only surveyed paediatric oncologists,36,42,43 the crude unweighted mean was 0.411 (95% CI: 0.299–0.523) and the pooled weighted estimate (Analysis 9) was 0.391 (k = 6, n = 1561, 95% CI: 0.346–0.439), with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 15.10, df = 5, p = 0.01, I2 = 66.89).

Three studies reported that a lack of resources (information or staff) was a barrier to symptom management43,72,77 for between 30% and 56% of participants (crude unweighted mean: 0.393, 95% CI: 0.269–0.759). Meta-analysis (Analysis 10) yielded a pooled weighted mean of 0.337 (k = 3, n = 450, 95% CI = 0.253–0.433), without significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 4.64, df = 2, p = 0.098, I2 = 56.86). A follow-up analysis (Analysis 11) on studies that included items regarding a lack of staff specifically43,77 found a crude unweighted mean of 0.430 (95% CI: 0.170–0.690) and a pooled weighted estimate of 0.398 (k = 2, n = 359, 95% CI: 0.185–0.658) with significant heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q = 4.608, df = 1, p = 0.032, I2 = 78.30).

Discussion

Main findings

This narrative synthesis and meta-analysis has uniquely identified the barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life. Both family carers and healthcare professionals described barriers and facilitators related to treatment efficiency and side effects, and factors relating to care at home, particularly issues around a lack of education and information. In addition, family carers described aspects of hospice care; the attentiveness of healthcare professionals; their own symptom management strategies; ease of access to medicines, assistance with medication and provision of information as affecting symptom management. Healthcare professionals emphasised support from palliative teams as a facilitator and issues relating to health service delivery as a barrier to managing symptoms. These factors link to the recent NICE guidelines,9 which recommend that healthcare professionals consider the importance of good communication with families, providing information, care planning, practical and social support, support for caregivers and appropriate service delivery.

Our review has highlighted the importance of symptom management planning in paediatric end-of-life care especially since caregivers and healthcare professionals believe that children suffer at end of life due to inadequate symptom treatment. This could be due to fear of treatment side effects, which may be based on inaccurate or outdated beliefs. In keeping with this, aside from paediatric oncologists, healthcare professionals in several studies reported that a lack of training and education prevented effective symptom management. Paediatric palliative care was only recognised as a speciality in the United Kingdom in 2009;84 yet the studies in our review date back to 1985; as such, misunderstandings related to treatments may be less prevalent today. Nonetheless, widespread implementation of paediatric palliative care is far from being attained in many countries, including the United States;85 thus, misconceptions about side effects may still hinder symptom management in many areas of the world. We recommend that clear and comprehensive symptom management plans are implemented to avoid children suffering at end of life, and that healthcare professionals involved in paediatric palliative care are given adequate training to recognise, treat and prevent symptoms including pain.

Issues around care at home were linked to poor symptom management and further indicate the need for good care planning. Caring for a child at end of life is challenging for parents,86 and our study highlights the need for more practical and social support and information to enable children to be looked after in their chosen place of care.9 Without effective pain relief, they may face unnecessary hospital admissions.7 We recommend that families are provided with information about symptom management so that they are equipped to effectively manage symptoms, including pain, when providing care for children at home. Future research could investigate what specific support or information is required to manage symptoms at home.

Our review highlights the need for good communication between healthcare professionals and families and within care teams. Some family carers felt that healthcare professionals did not respond to their concerns about symptoms, or that they received conflicting advice. Healthcare professionals also reported conflict within care teams. Delivery of palliative care services should be organised to ensure continuous care and prevent delays in access to treatment, with guidelines that enable healthcare professionals to make safe and effective decisions that put children and their families at the forefront of care. Communication training for healthcare professionals is a key component of the recommendations made by NICE9 to ensure that children and their caregivers are involved in care planning and decision-making.

Access to treatment was identified as a further potential barrier. Several studies were conducted in low-middle income countries where supply chains and prescriber difficulties may inhibit symptom management. In the United Kingdom, access to medicines for patients at home can sometimes be challenging, and we recommend that families are supported to ensure they have access to essential equipment and to the medications they require, including the provision of anticipatory prescribing.

Strengths and limitations

Our review was fairly broad in its approach and inclusive to ensure we identified as many sources of data as possible. However, due to the lack of studies specifically and properly designed to identify barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptoms management at end of life, our review has incorporated a number of studies of low quality. Some aimed to identify barriers yet did not give participants the opportunity to freely discuss these and instead presented pre-defined concepts. Other studies included decisions about treatments aimed at disease modification and/or prolonging life, rather than purely symptom management. In addition, the majority were not informed by a theoretical framework or model. Further research is required in this area, particularly regarding the views of children themselves, since only one study included patients’ perspectives.

The majority of the surveys used in the quantitative studies were devised by the researchers. This limited their comparability and the number of meta-analyses that could be performed. Differences in individual study effect sizes in the meta-analyses could be due to the varying ways in which questions were asked, especially as the exact questions and possible responses were not always listed. These findings suggest the need for a reliable, valid questionnaire assessing barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life.

What this study adds

Our findings are limited by the quality of studies on which this review is based; however, they highlight the importance of clear communication between clinical teams and between healthcare professionals and families. Healthcare professionals and families would benefit from increased education and training, while delivery of services needs to include social and practical support for families, anticipatory care planning and symptom management planning.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_File_1_Search_Strategy_ – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_1_Search_Strategy_ for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Supplementary_File_2_Meta-analysis_raw_data – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_2_Meta-analysis_raw_data for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Supplementary_File_3_Quality_assessments_of_included_studies – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_3_Quality_assessments_of_included_studies for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Supplementary_File_4_Assessment_of_confidence_in_themes – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_4_Assessment_of_confidence_in_themes for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Supplementary_File_5_Themes_developed_from_thematic_analysis – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_5_Themes_developed_from_thematic_analysis for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Supplementary_File_6_Meta-analysis_individual_forest_plots – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Supplementary_File_6_Meta-analysis_individual_forest_plots for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Title_and_description_of_supplementary_materials – Supplemental material for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life:

Supplemental material, Title_and_description_of_supplementary_materials for A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis of barriers and facilitators to paediatric symptom management at end of life by Katie Greenfield, Simone Holley, Daniel E Schoth, Emily Harrop, Richard F Howard, Julie Bayliss, Lynda Brook, Satbir S Jassal, Margaret Johnson, Ian Wong and Christina Liossi in Palliative Medicine

Footnotes

Author contributions: E.H., R.F.H., M.J. and I.W. conceived the idea and reviewed the protocol and manuscript. C.L. conceived the idea, planned, designed, reviewed and revised the protocol, reviewed and revised the search strategy, search findings and manuscript. D.E.S. planned the searches, data extraction and statistical analysis, conducted data synthesis and reviewed and revised the protocol and manuscript. K.G. and S.H. planned and carried out the searches, data extraction, quality assessment and data synthesis and drafted and revised the protocol and manuscript. J.B., S.S.J. and L.B. provided critical insights and reviewed the study protocol and manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Great Ormond Street Children’s Charity and SPARKS (grant number: V5118).

ORCID iD: Christina Liossi

Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

1. Connor SR, Bermedo M. Global atlas of palliative care at the end of life. London: Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance and World Health Organization, 2014. [Google Scholar]

2. Fraser LK, Miller M, Hain R, et al. Rising national prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children in England. Pediatrics 2012; 129(4): e923–e929. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Himelstein BP, Hilden JM, Boldt AM, et al. Pediatric palliative care. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1752–1762. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Chi N-C, Demiris G, Pike KC, et al. Pain management concerns from the hospice family caregivers’ perspective. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2018; 35(4): 601–611. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Brombley K. Understanding the factors that influence parents as they plan and manage their child’s end of life care. In: The 3rd congress on paediatric palliative care – a global gathering, Rome, Foundazione Maruzza, 16–19 November 2016. [Google Scholar]

8. Castor C, Hallstrom I, Hansson H, et al. Home care services for sick children: healthcare professionals’ conceptions of challenges and facilitators. J Clin Nurs 2017; 26(17–18): 2784–2793. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Greenfield K, Holley S, Schoth D, et al. Barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end-of-life: a mixed methods systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2019; 9(7): e030566. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Greenfield K, Holley S, Schoth D, et al. Systematic review of the barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end-of-life CRD42019124797, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019124797 (2019, accessed 21 May 2019). [PMC free article] [PubMed]

12. QSR International. NVivo qualitative data analysis software [computer program] (Version 12). Chadstone, VIC, Australia: QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018. [Google Scholar]

13. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10(1): 45–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Noyes J, Booth A, Moore G, et al. Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Glob Health 2019; 4(Suppl. 1): e000893. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001895. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Biostat. Comprehensive meta-analysis [computer program] (Version 3). Englewood, NJ: Biostat, 2015. [Google Scholar]

17. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. [Google Scholar]

18. Amery J. Mapping children’s palliative care around the world: an online survey of children’s palliative care services and professionals’ educational needs. J Palliat Med 2012; 15(6): 646–652. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Amery J, Lapwood S. A study into the educational needs of children’s hospice doctors: a descriptive quantitative and qualitative survey. Palliat Med 2004; 18(8): 727–733. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Amery JM, Rose CJ, Byarugaba C, et al. A study into the children’s palliative care educational needs of health professionals in Uganda. J Palliat Med 2010; 13(2): 147–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Bagatell R, Meyer R, Herron S, et al. When children die: a seminar series for pediatric residents. Pediatrics 2002; 110(2 Pt 1): 348–353. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Balkin EM, Ort K, Goldsby R, et al. Pocket reference card improves pediatric resident comfort in caring for children at end of life. J Palliat Med 2017; 20(4): 409–414. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Baughcum AE, Gerhardt CA, Young-Saleme T, et al. Evaluation of a pediatric palliative care educational workshop for oncology fellows. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007; 49: 154–159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Bergstraesser E, Inglin S, Abbruzzese R, et al. The needs of professionals in the palliative care of children and adolescents. Eur J Pediatr 2013; 172(1): 111–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Bogetz JF, Root MC, Purser L, et al. Comparing health care provider-perceived barriers to pediatric palliative care fifteen years ago and today. J Palliat Med 2019; 22: 145–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Byrne MW, Evan E, Goshin LS, et al. Parent self-efficacy for managing pain in seriously ill children and adolescents nearing end of life. Palliat Support Care 2011; 9(2): 137–147. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Chen YC, Peng NH, Chen CH, et al. Effectiveness of pain and symptom management training for paediatric clinicians. J Res Nurs 2017; 22: 405–415. [Google Scholar]

28. Collins JJ, Stevens MM, Cousens P. Home care for the dying child: a parent’s perception. Aust Fam Physician 1998; 27(7): 610–614. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Contro N, Larson J, Scofield S, et al. Family perspectives on the quality of pediatric palliative care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002; 156: 14–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Contro NA, Larson J, Scofield S, et al. Hospital staff and family perspectives regarding quality of pediatric palliative care. Pediatrics 2004; 114(5): 1248–1252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Dangel T, Fowler-Kerry S, Karwacki M, et al. An evaluation of a home palliative care programme for children. Ambul Child Health 2000; 6: 101–114. [Google Scholar]

32. Davies B, Sehring SA, Partridge JC, et al. Barriers to palliative care for children: perceptions of pediatric health care providers. Pediatrics 2008; 121(2): 282–288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Dickens DS. Building competence in pediatric end-of-life care. J Palliat Med 2009; 12(7): 617–622. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Ellis JA, McCarthy P, Hershon L, et al. Pain practices: a cross-Canada survey of pediatric oncology centers. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 2003; 20(1): 26–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Fortney CA, Steward DK. A qualitative study of nurse observations of symptoms in infants at end-of-life in the neonatal intensive care unit. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2017; 40: 57–63. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Fowler K, Poehling K, Billheimer D, et al. Hospice referral practices for children with cancer: a survey of pediatric oncologists. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(7): 1099–1104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Friedrichsdorf SJ, Postier A, Dreyfus J, et al. Improved quality of life at end of life related to home-based palliative care in children with cancer. J Palliat Med 2015; 18(2): 143–150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Gilmer MJ, Foster TL, Bell CJ, et al. Parental perceptions of care of children at end of life. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2013; 30(1): 53–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Grimley ME. Survey on pediatric palliative care for healthcare providers (SPPCHP): identifying knowledge, barriers, and support needs. PhD Thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 2011. [Google Scholar]

40. Groh G, Borasio GD, Nickolay C, et al. Specialized pediatric palliative home care: a prospective evaluation. J Palliat Med 2013; 16(12): 1588–1594. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Hendricks-Ferguson V. Physical symptoms of children receiving pediatric hospice care at home during the last week of life. Oncol Nurs Forum 2008; 35(6): E108–E115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Hilden JM, Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, et al. Attitudes and practices among pediatric oncologists regarding end-of-life care: results of the 1998 American Society of Clinical Oncology survey. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(1): 205–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Houlahan KE, Branowicki PA, Mack JW, et al. Can end of life care for the pediatric patient suffering with escalating and intractable symptoms be improved. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 2006; 23(1): 45–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Klepping L. Total pain: a reflective case study addressing the experience of a terminally ill adolescent. Int J Palliat Nurs 2012; 18(3): 121–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Kohler JA, Radford M. Terminal care for children dying of cancer: quantity and quality of life. Br Med J 1985; 291(6488): 115–116. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Kolarik RC, Walker G, Arnold RM. Pediatric resident education in palliative care: a needs assessment. Pediatrics 2006; 117(6): 1949–1954. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Lewis EG, Oates LL, Rogathi J, et al. ‘We never speak about death’. Healthcare professionals’ views on palliative care for inpatients in Tanzania: a qualitative study. Palliat Support Care 2018; 16(5): 566–579. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Malcolm C, Forbat L, Anderson G, et al. Challenging symptom profiles of life-limiting conditions in children: a survey of care professionals and families. Palliat Med 2011; 25(4): 357–364. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Mariyana R, Allenidekania A, Nurhaeni N. Parents’ voice in managing the pain of children with cancer during palliative care. Indian J Palliat Care 2018; 24(2): 156–161. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Maynard L, Lynn D. Innovative approach to providing 24/7 palliative care for children. Nurs Child Young People 2014; 26(6): 27–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. McCabe ME, Hunt EA, Serwint JR. Pediatric residents’ clinical and educational experiences with end-of-life care. Pediatrics 2008; 121(4): e731–E737. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. McCluggage H. Symptoms suffered by life-limited children that cause anxiety to UK children’s hospice staff. Int J Palliat Nurs 2006; 12(6): 254–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Meyer EC, Burns JP, Griffith JL, et al. Parental perspectives on end-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 226–231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Michelson KN, Koogler T, Sullivan C, et al. Parental views on withdrawing life-sustaining therapies in critically ill children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163(11): 986–992. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Monterosso L, Kristjanson LJ, Aoun S, et al. Supportive and palliative care needs of families of children with life-threatening illnesses in Western Australia: evidence to guide the development of a palliative care service. Palliat Med 2007; 21(8): 689–696. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Monterosso L, Kristjanson LJ. Supportive and palliative care needs of families of children who die from cancer: an Australian study. Palliat Med 2008; 22(1): 59–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Monterosso L, Kristjanson LJ, Phillips MB. The supportive and palliative care needs of Australian families of children who die from cancer. Palliat Med 2009; 23: 526–536. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Naicker SN, Richter L, Stein A, et al. Development and pilot evaluation of a home-based palliative care training and support package for young children in southern Africa. BMC Palliat Care 2016; 15: 41. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Peng N-H, Chen C-H, Huang L-C, et al. The educational needs of neonatal nurses regarding neonatal palliative care. Nurse Educ Today 2013; 33: 1506–1510. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Price J, Jordan J, Prior L. A consensus for change: parent and professional perspectives on care for children at the end-of-life. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs 2013; 36(1–2): 70–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Price JE. Parents’ experiences of palliative and terminal care for children (patch). PhD Thesis, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast: 2010. [Google Scholar]

62. Pritchard M. Symptoms of dying children in the last week of life. PhD Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 2006. [Google Scholar]

63. Pritchard M, Burghen E, Srivastava DK, et al. Cancer-related symptoms most concerning to parents during the last week and last day of their child’s life. Pediatrics 2008; 121(5): e1301–e1309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Rapoport A, Obwanga C, Sirianni G, et al. Not just little adults: palliative care physician attitudes toward pediatric patients. J Palliat Med 2013; 16(6): 675–679. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Saad R, Huijer HA, Noureddine S, et al. Bereaved parental evaluation of the quality of a palliative care program in Lebanon. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011; 57(2): 310–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Stein A, Forrest GC, Woolley H, et al. Life threatening illness and hospice care. Arch Dis Child 1989; 64: 697–702. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Szymczak JE, Schall T, Hill DL, et al. Pediatric oncology providers’ perceptions of a palliative care service: the influence of emotional esteem and emotional labor. J Pain Symptom Manage 2018; 55(5): 1260–1268. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. Tamannai M, Kaah J, Mbah G, et al. An evaluation of a palliative care outreach programme for children with Burkitt lymphoma in rural Cameroon. Int J Palliat Nurs 2015; 21(7): 331–337. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Theunissen J, Hoogerbrugge P, van Achterberg T, et al. Symptoms in the palliative phase of children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007; 49(2): 160–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Thienprayoon R, Marks E, Funes M, et al. Perceptions of the pediatric hospice experience among English- and Spanish-speaking families. J Palliat Med 2016; 19(1): 30–41. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Ullrich CK, Dussel V, Hilden JM, et al. Fatigue in children with cancer at the end of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010; 40(4): 483–494. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Van der Geest IM, Bindels PJ, Pluijm SM, et al. Home-based palliative care for children with incurable cancer: long-term perspectives of and impact on general practitioners. J Pain Symptom Manage 2017; 53(3): 578–587. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Verberne LM, Kars MC, Schouten-van Meeteren AY, et al. Aims and tasks in parental caregiving for children receiving palliative care at home: a qualitative study. Eur J Pediatr 2017; 176(3): 343–354. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Vickers JL, Carlisle C. Choices and control: parental experiences in pediatric terminal home care. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 2000; 17(1): 12–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Vollenbroich R, Borasio GD, Duroux A, et al. Listening to parents: the role of symptom perception in pediatric palliative home care. Palliat Support Care 2016; 14(1): 13–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

76. Vollenbroich R, Duroux A, Grasser M, et al. Effectiveness of a pediatric palliative home care team as experienced by parents and health care professionals. J Palliat Med 2012; 15(3): 294–300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

77. Wheeler JH. Pediatric nurses’ attitudes, practices, and barriers regarding the care of infants and children living with life-threatening conditions and their families. PhD Thesis, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 2005. [Google Scholar]

78. Wolfe J, Grier HE, Klar N, et al. Symptoms and suffering at the end of life in children with cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 326–333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

79. Yorke DM. Parents’ reflections on the quality of dying and death of their children in the PICU. PhD Thesis, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 2007. [Google Scholar]

80. Zaal-Schuller IH, Willems DL, Ewals F, et al. Considering quality of life in end-of-life decisions for severely disabled children. Res Dev Disabil 2018; 73: 67–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. Zelcer S, Cataudella D, Cairney AE, et al. Palliative care of children with brain tumors: a parental perspective. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164(3): 225–230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

82. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1985. [Google Scholar]

83. Effective Public Health Practice Project. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies 1998. Hamilton, ON, Canada: Effective Public Health Practice Project. [Google Scholar]

84. Hain R, Heckford E, McCulloch R. Paediatric palliative medicine in the UK: past, present, future. Arch Dis Child 2012; 97(4): 381–384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Knapp C, Woodworth L, Wright M, et al. Pediatric palliative care provision around the world: a systematic review. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011; 57(3): 361–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Hill DL, Miller VA, Hexem KR, et al. Problems and hopes perceived by mothers, fathers and physicians of children receiving palliative care. Health Expect 2015; 18(5): 1052–1065. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]