Background The success of behavioral interventions and policies designed to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends on how well individuals are informed about both the consequences of infection and the steps that should be taken to reduce the impact of the disease. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate associations between public knowledge about COVID-19, adherence to social distancing, and public trust in government information sources (eg, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), private sources (eg, FOX and CNN), and social networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter) to inform future policies related to critical information distribution. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey (N=1243) between April 10 and 14, 2020. Data collection was stratified by US region and other demographics to ensure representativeness of the sample. Results Government information sources were the most trusted among the public. However, we observed trends in the data that suggested variations in trust by age and gender. White and older populations generally expressed higher trust in government sources, while non-White and younger populations expressed higher trust in private sources (eg, CNN) and social networks (eg, Twitter). Trust in government sources was positively associated with accurate knowledge about COVID-19 and adherence to social distancing. However, trust in private sources (eg, FOX and CNN) was negatively associated with knowledge about COVID-19. Similarly, trust in social networks (eg, Facebook and Twitter) was negatively associated with both knowledge and adherence to social distancing. Conclusions During pandemics such as the COVID-19 outbreak, policy makers should carefully consider the quality of information disseminated through private sources and social networks. Furthermore, when disseminating urgent health information, a variety of information sources should be used to ensure that diverse populations have timely access to critical knowledge.

IMPORTANCE Adult patients are considered the best reporters of their own health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Self-report in pediatrics has been challenged by a limited array of valid measures. Caregiver report is therefore often used as a proxy for child report.OBJECTIVES To examine the degree of alignment between child and caregiver proxy report for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) HRQOL domains among children with cancer and to identify factors associated with better child and caregiver-proxy congruence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this multicenter cohort study, children with a first cancer diagnosis and their caregivers completed surveys at 2 time points: within 72 hours preceding treatment initiation (T1) and during follow-up (T2), when symptom burden was expected to be higher (eg, 7-17 days later for chemotherapy). Data were collected from October 26, 2016, to October 5, 2018, at 9 pediatric oncology hospitals. Five hundred eighty children (aged 7-18 years) and their caregivers were approached; 482 child-caregiver dyads completed surveys at T1 (response rate 83%), and 403 completed surveys at T2 (84% of T1 participants). Data were analyzed from July 1, 2019, to April 22, 2020.EXPOSURES Participants received up-front cancer treatment, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESCongruence between child self-report and caregiver-proxy report of PROMIS pediatric domains of mobility (physical functioning), pain interference, fatigue, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and psychological stress. RESULTSOf the 482 dyads included in the analysis, 262 children (54%) were male (mean [SD] age, 12.9 [3.4] years), 80 (17%) were Black, and 71 (15%) were Hispanic. Intraclass correlations between child self-report and caregiver proxy report showed moderate agreement for mobility (0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.63]) and poor agreement for symptoms (range, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24-0.41] for fatigue to 0.42 [95% CI, 0.34-0.50] for psychological stress). Children reported lower symptom burden and higher mobility than caregivers reported. In a multivariable model adjusted for child and parent sociodemographic factors and the caregiver's own self-reported HRQOL, caregivers reported the child's mobility score 6.00 points worse than the child's self-report at T2 (95% CI, −7.45 to −4.51), exceeding the PROMIS minimally important difference of 3 points. Caregivers overestimated the child's self-reported symptom levels, ranging from 5.79 (95% CI, 3.99-7.60) points for psychological stress to 13.69 (95% CI,) points for fatigue. The caregiver's own self-reported HRQOL was associated with the magnitude of difference between child and caregiver scores for all domains except mobility; for example, for fatigue, the magnitude of difference between child and caregiver-proxy scores increased by 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13-0.30) points for each 1-point increase in the caregiver's own fatigue score.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that caregivers consistently overestimated symptoms and underestimat...

Background Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements linked to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading may improve symptom adverse event (AE) reporting in pediatric oncology trials. We evaluated construct validity, responsiveness, and test-retest reliability of the Ped-PRO–CTCAE measurement system for children and adolescents undergoing cancer care. Methods A total of 482 children and adolescents (7–18 years, 41.5% not non-Hispanic white) newly diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers participated from nine pediatric oncology hospitals. Surveys were completed at 72 hours preceding treatment initiation (T1) and at follow-up (T2) approximately 7–17 days later for chemotherapy, and 4+ weeks for radiation. Psychometric analyses examined the relationship of Ped-PRO-CTCAE items (assessing 62 symptom AEs) with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, Lansky Play-Performance Scale, and medication use. A separate test-retest study included 46 children. Results Ped-PRO-CTCAE and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale were strongly correlated across age groups at T2: 7–12 years (r = 0.62–0.80), 13–15 years (r = 0.44–0.94), and 16–18 years (r = 0.65–0.98); and over time. The Ped-PRO-CTCAE was strongly correlated with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pediatric measures at T2; for example, pain interference (r = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64 to 0.76), fatigue severity (r = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.69), and depression severity (r = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.81). Ped-PRO-CTCAE items differentiated children by Lansky Play-Performance Scale and by medication use. Test-retest agreement ranged from 54.3% to 93.5%. Conclusions This longitudinal study provided evidence for the construct validity and reliability of the core Ped-PRO-CTCAE symptom AE items relative to several established measures. Additional responsiveness data with clinical anchors are recommended. Incorporation of Ped-PRO-CTCAE in trials may lead to a better understanding of the cancer treatment experience.

Objective Previous work in pediatric oncology has found that clinicians and parents tend to under-report the frequency and severity of treatment-related symptoms compared to child self-report. As such, there is a need to identify high-quality self-report instruments to be used in pediatric oncology research studies. This study’s objective was to conduct a systematic literature review of existing English language instruments used to measure self-reported symptoms in children and adolescents undergoing cancer treatment. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to identify relevant articles published through November 10, 2016. Using pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, six trained reviewers carefully screened abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility. Results There were 7738 non-duplicate articles identified in the literature search. Forty articles met our eligibility criteria, and within these articles, there were 38 self-report English symptom instruments. Most studies evaluated only cross-sectional psychometric properties, such as reliability or validity. Ten studies assessed an instrument’s responsiveness or ability to detect changes in symptoms over time. Eight instruments met our criteria for use in future longitudinal pediatric oncology studies. Conclusions This systematic review aids pediatric oncology researchers in identifying and selecting appropriate symptom measures with strong psychometric evidence for their studies. Enhancing the child’s voice in pediatric oncology research studies allows us to better understand the impact of cancer and its treatment on the lives of children.

PURPOSE To examine concordance in symptomatic adverse event (AE) grading using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE 4.0) for clinicians and its patient-reported outcome (PRO) versions for children (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) and caregivers (Ped-PRO-CTCAE [Caregiver]). METHODS Children age 7-18 years with a first cancer diagnosis, their clinicians, and caregivers completed CTCAE-based measures before starting a treatment course (T1) and after the treatment (T2). Grades (0-3) were assigned by each reporter for 15 core AEs spanning physical and mental health. Mean grades were compared between reporters using two-sample t-tests; agreement was estimated using weighted kappa (κ) statistics. Multivariable mixed regression models were used to evaluate associations of clinical factors with AE reporting concordance. Significance was set at α = .05 (two-sided). RESULTS There were 438 child-clinician-caregiver triads with complete data at either T1 or T2. For children, the mean age was 13 years (standard deviation = 3.4), 53.7% were male, 32.6% non-White, and 56.4% had leukemia/lymphoma. At T1, clinician mean AE grades were significantly lower (ie, better) than children for all AEs and remained significantly lower at T2 except for constipation, nausea, anorexia, neuropathy, and anxiety. Caregiver mean AE grades were similar to children at T1 and significantly higher (ie, worse) at T2 for nausea, vomiting, anorexia, pain, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Agreement for child-clinician grading was poor-to-fair at T1 (κ range, 0.08-0.34) and T2 (0.11-0.35), and for child-caregiver, was fair-to-good at T1 (0.34-0.65) and T2 (0.24-0.60). No factors were consistently associated with reporter concordance across AEs. CONCLUSION Compared with children, symptomatic AEs were consistently under-reported by clinicians with low agreement and over-reported by caregivers with low-moderate agreement. Direct reporting by children using Ped-PRO-CTCAE or similar measures should be routinely incorporated for toxicity assessment in clinical trials.