Despite rapid and successful development in pediatric cancer treatment, many ethical challenges remain. These challenges have been, and continue to be, the subject of much research, but few qualitative studies have explored the views of nurses, especially in the Middle East. This study, therefore, seeks to fill a knowledge gap in this area and to better understand the concerns of nurses—particularly those in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Face-to-face, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 male and female nurses working in pediatric units at 2 hospitals in Saudi Arabia to explore their views on the ethical challenges in caring for children with cancer. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, then line-by-line encoded, merged, and categorized into themes. Our results show that pediatric cancer is perceived as being “different” from other diseases, and from cancer in adults. Nurses are an integral part of the medical care team and are aware of the importance of their role, as well as the special relationships that they develop with the children. Consent is mandatory and necessary and can be signed by any parent. Assent is important when children become able to give it. Pediatric cancer is seen as a different disease by nurses for various reasons. Their roles and relationships with children and families pose many challenges. Though parental consent and child assent are essential, nurses’ collaboration is important for shared decision-making. Our study paves the way for broader studies to understand the concerns of nurses and other health-care providers about treating children with pediatric cancer.

Introduction Osteoporosis (OP) is one of the most common comorbidities associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Literatures reported that the risk for developing OP was strongly associated with duration and severity of RA. We aim to elaborate on the consequences of OP on disease activity and management plan in patients with RA. Patients and Methods A retrospective cohort study recruited 408 patients, including those with RA alone and with RA plus OP. The RA disease activity in the patients was assessed using disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28-CRP). A statistical analysis was performed to compare data between the two groups of patients and determine any significant risk factor associated with the development of OP in RA patients. Results Of 408 patients who were included in this study, 353 patients (86.5%) had only RA, while 55 patients (13.5%) had RA with OP and showed significant difference ( P = 0.04) concerning age categories. Patients diagnosed with RA and OP had RA duration longer than RA-only patients (independent t -test, P = 0.01). The two groups had almost similar disease activity at the three clinical visits, as well, had nearly similar disability at their first visit, whereas RA with OP patients had significant greater disability at their 2 nd and 3 rd visits (independent t -test, P = 0.001). Both groups were treated with the same biologic and non-biologic medication of similar frequency, although RA patients with OP received steroid more frequently than patients had RA only (61.7% vs. 41.7%, chi square test, P = 0.03). Conclusion There was no significant difference in disease activity at both groups of patients. However, RA with OP group had longer duration of RA, were more frequently treated with steroids, and had greater disability. We recommend physicians focus on controlling RA disease activity, early screening for and treating of OP.

No abstract