Citations

Abstract Background Pediatric cancer rehabilitation is a growing field, and pediatric rehabilitation medicine physicians play an important role in the care continuum for children and adolescents with cancer. However, the current practice patterns and experiences of pediatric physiatrists in cancer rehabilitation are not well known. Objective To evaluate the status of pediatric cancer rehabilitation care by board‐certified pediatric physiatrists in the United States, including their practice pattern, experience, and comfort level in cancer‐related conditions. Design An online 37‐question Research Electronic Data Capture survey was developed by members of a pediatric cancer rehabilitation committee of a national physiatry organization. Descriptive data analysis was performed. Setting Survey invitations were sent via email to potential participants and posted on social media sites, including an online physiatry community forum and a pediatric physiatrist private group. Patients (or Participants) Targeted participants were board‐certified pediatric physiatrists who treat pediatric patients with cancer diagnoses. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measure(s) Survey questions pertained to respondents' practice setting and patient population, type of cancer rehabilitation provided, presence of a cancer rehabilitation program at their institution, and their learning experience in pediatric cancer rehabilitation. Results A total of 107 board‐certified pediatric physiatrists completed the survey, representing 57 institutions in the United States, the majority of which were academic centers ( n = 95; 88.8%). Ninety‐seven (90.7%) reported their practice consisted of >75% pediatric patients, and 95 (88.8%) indicated <25% pediatric patients in the practice have cancer diagnoses. Forty respondents representing 19 institutions (33.3%) reported an established cancer rehabilitation program at their institution, though of these, 23 (57.5%) indicated that more improvement to their program was needed. Sixty‐three respondents (58.9%) gained experience in cancer rehabilitation from fellowship, 51 (47.7%) from residency, and 47 (43.9%) from mentorship; majority ( n = 102; 95.3%) also learned from self‐study or on the job. Participants' comfort level on cancer‐related conditions varied. Conclusions This survey, aimed at board‐certified pediatric physiatrists who practice pediatric cancer rehabilitation, highlights the variety in training experiences and practice exposure among respondents. Concomitant with this was a variance in reported comfort levels in treating the different cancer‐related diagnoses. This raises for discussion what training opportunities might be strengthened as the subspeciality continues to grow.

ImportanceThis is the first population-based study quantifying the incidence of nonsynostotic positional plagiocephaly and/or brachycephaly (PPB) in infancy and its association with developmental disorders.ObjectiveTo report the incidence of PPB before age 1 year, the incidence of craniosynostosis, and the percentage of children with PPB diagnosed with a developmental disorder by age 7 years.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of children in the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) born in Olmsted County, Minnesota, from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2012, with follow-up through age 7 years. Data were analyzed from March 2021 to April 2024.ExposurePhysical examination detecting cranial deformity.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the incidence of PPB. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of craniosynostosis and the percentage of children with PPB diagnosed with a developmental disorder by age 7 years.ResultsOf 9909 infants (5084 [51.3%] male; 9205 [92.9%] born at term and 704 [7.1%] born preterm) included in the study, 575 had PPB, for a PPB incidence of 5.8% (95% CI, 5.3%-6.3%). The incidence of PPB was 5.3% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.8%) in term infants vs 11.8% (95% CI, 9.4%-14.6%) in preterm infants. The incidence of craniosynostosis was 0.16% (95% CI, 0.09%-0.26%). A developmental disorder was known or suspected in 4.2% (95% CI, 2.7%-6.2%) of infants at the time of PPB diagnosis; among 402 infants with PPB and follow-up through age 7 years, 30 (7.5%; 95% CI, 5.0%-10.7%) had a confirmed developmental disorder by 7 years of age. The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children with a history of PPB who were followed up to age 7 years was 2.2% (9 of 402 children).Conclusions and RelevanceThis study found that only a small percentage of the infants had positional head deformity significant enough to be documented and/or referred for subspecialty evaluation, and only a small subset of these children went on to have a developmental disorder in childhood. This information is helpful for counseling families about their child’s developmental risk at time of PPB diagnosis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many changes in medicine including the transition from providing care in person to providing care via technology enabled telemedicine. The benefits of telemedicine visits with a Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) provider, also known as telerehabilitation medicine visits, are numerous. Telerehabilitation medicine provides an opportunity to deliver timely, patient and family-centric rehabilitation care while maintaining physical distance and reducing potential COVID-19 exposure for our patients, their caregivers and medical providers. Telerehabilitation medicine also allows for access to PRM care in rural areas or areas without medical specialty, virtual in-home equipment evaluation, and reduced travel burden. Because of these and many other benefits, telerehabilitation medicine will likely become part of our ongoing model of care if barriers to telemedicine continue to be lowered or removed. This paper is intended to establish a foundation for pediatric telerehabilitation medicine visit efficiency and effectiveness in our current environment and into the future.