Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 11;19(1):76.
doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1447-1.

Development of a web-based assessment tool that evaluates the meal situation when a child has a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Margaretha Jenholt Nolbris  1   2 , Ann-Louise Gustafsson  2 , Carina Fondin  2 , Karin Mellgren  2   3 , Stefan Nilsson  4
Affiliations

Development of a web-based assessment tool that evaluates the meal situation when a child has a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

Margaretha Jenholt Nolbris et al. BMC Pediatr. .

Abstract

Background: Children with cancer often suffer side effects from their treatment, for example nausea and vomiting, which can lead to malnutrition. If a child cannot eat orally, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) can improve his or her well-being, psychosocial development and growth by enabling the supply of nourishment and facilitating the administration of necessary medicines. Few data exist on children's comfort when using a PEG. The aim of this study was firstly to develop three versions of a web-based assessment tool in which children, families, and healthcare professionals would be able to register their observations and assessments for evaluating the meal situation when a child has a PEG and secondly to validate the content of the tool.

Methods: A qualitative design was chosen with purposive sampling of participants. Five children with cancer, five parents, five registered nurses and five paediatricians participated first in an interview and then in a member check of the web-based tool. The data were analysed with manifest qualitative content analysis.

Results: The results highlighted four categories of issues which needed to be revised in the web-based tool: words which were difficult for the participants to understand, items which contained several questions, items which needed to be split into more items to be answerable and the layout of the questionnaire. The web-based tool was revised according to the categories, and then a member check evaluated and finally confirmed the revisions.

Conclusions: A web-based tool may be able to evaluate the meal situation when a child with cancer has a PEG. The tool may be able to detect early failures of the PEG, facilitating early action from the healthcare professionals in supporting the child and his or her parents in their care of the PEG. In the long run, this web-based tool may also be able to increase the quality of care of children living with a PEG.

Keywords: Cancer; Child; Gastrostomy tube; Web tool.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Regional Ethical Review Board at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, approved the study (Dnr: 312–14). Informed written and verbal consent was obtained from all the participants. Parental written and verbal consent was obtained for participants under 16 years of age. The study was conducted voluntarily, and all participants knew that they could withdraw their participation whenever they wanted.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Step one, two, and three in the development of the web-based tool
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Åvitsland T, Birketvedt K, Bjørnland K, Emblem R. Parent-reported effects of gastrostomy tube placement. Nutr Clin Pract. 2013;28:493–498. doi: 10.1177/0884533613486484. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmitt F, Caldari D, Corradini N, Gicquel P, Lutz P, Leclair M, et al. Tolerance and efficacy of preventive gastrostomy feeding in pediatric oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59:874–880. doi: 10.1002/pbc.24161. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singh RR, Nah SA, Roebuck DJ, Eaton S, Pierro A, Curry JI, collaborators P-Rt Double-blind randomized clinical trial of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus radiologically inserted gastrostomy in children. Br J Surg. 2017;104:1620–1627. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10687. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Martinez-Costa C, Calderón C, Gómez-López L, Borraz S, Pedrón-Giner C. Satisfaction with gastrostomy feeding in caregivers of children with home enteral nutrition: application of the SAGA-8 questionnaire and analysis of involved factors. Nutritión Hospitalaria. 2013;28:1121–1128. - PubMed
    1. Downs J, Wong K, Ravikumara M, Ellaway C, Elliott EJ, Christodoulou J, et al. Experience of gastrostomy using a quality care framework: the example of Rett syndrome. Medicine. 2014;93:1–9. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000328. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources