Implementing health promotion interventions in a pediatric oncology setting: A qualitative study among families impacted by cancer and healthcare professionals.
Catherine Demers, Isabelle Gélinas, Johanne Kerba and 11 others
PMID 40340638WHAT IT FOUND
Families and oncology staff said a health promotion program was easier to join when flexible, tailored, remote when needed and fitted around treatment.
Time, unclear roles, staff burden, overlap and early treatment stress made it hard.
Key findings
01Families and healthcare professionals said flexibility, tailoring, remote delivery, filling waiting time, perceived benefits, trust and staff support helped participation.
02Participation and implementation were hindered by time and organizational constraints, family burden, early treatment stress, lower adolescent motivation, poor staff knowledge, not feeling involved, overlapping interventions and poor coordination.
03Participants suggested integrating health promotion into routine care, defining roles, explaining goals, using group activities, adapting by age and diagnosis, and starting later in the cancer journey.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
It was done at one hospital with 12 families and 11 healthcare professionals, so it may not apply to other pediatric oncology settings. Only families who had been in the program for at least a year and a half and who agreed to interviews were included, so people who dropped out or had different experiences may be missing. The first author conducted and analysed the data while being part of the research team, which could have influenced what participants said or how data were interpreted. The program was evaluated as a whole, so the study cannot say which component, such as physical activity, nutrition or psychosocial support, drove any experience. It reports experiences and implementation factors, not health outcomes, so it cannot show that the program changed behaviour or improved cancer outcomes.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The first author was supported by the Gouverneurs de l’Espoir Foundation, and the VIE study was funded by the Fondation Charles Bruneau.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that the health promotion program improved health behaviours, physical activity or cancer outcomes. It was a small qualitative study of experiences and implementation, and it evaluated the program as a whole rather than testing its effects.