Background Following diagnosis, children with cancer suddenly find themselves in an unknown world where unfamiliar adults make all the important decisions. Children typically experience increasing levels of anxiety with repeated invasive procedures and do not adapt to the discomfort. The aim of the present study is to explore the possibility of asking children directly about their medical support preferences during invasive procedures. Procedure Each patient was offered a choice of medical support on the day of the procedure, specifically general anesthesia (GA), conscious sedation (CS), or nothing. An ad hoc assessment tool was prepared in order to measure child discomfort before, during, and after each procedure, and caregiver adequacy was measured. Both instruments were completed at each procedure by the attending psychologist. Results We monitored 247 consecutive invasive procedures in 85 children and found that children in the 4 to 7 year age group showed significantly higher distress levels. GA was chosen 66 times (26.7%), CS was chosen 97 times (39.3%), and nothing was chosen 5 times and exclusively by adolescents. The child did not choose in 79 procedures (32%). The selection of medical support differed between age groups and distress level was reduced at succeeding procedures. Conclusions Offering children the choice of medical support during invasive procedures allows for tailored support based on individual needs and is an effective modality to return active control to young patients, limiting the emotional trauma of cancer and treatment.

Background: Although Moral Distress (MD) is a matter of concern within the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU), there is no validated Italian instrument for measuring the phenomenon in nurses and physicians who care for pediatric patients in Intensive Care. The authors of the Italian Moral Distress Scale-Revised (Italian MDS-R), validated for the adult setting, in 2017, invited further research to evaluate the generalizability of the scale to clinicians working in other fields. Our study aims to reduce this knowledge gap by developing and validating the pediatric version of the Italian MDS-R. Methods: We evaluated the new instrument for construct validity, then we administered it in a multicenter, web-based survey that involved healthcare providers of three PICUs and three adult ICUs admitting children in northern, central, and southern Italy. Finally, we tested it for internal consistency, confirmatory factorial validity, convergent validity, and differences between groups analysis. Results: The 14-item, three-factor model best fit the data. The scale showed good reliability (a = 0.87). Still, it did not correlate with the Emotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization sub-scales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) or with the 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 2) or the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). A mild correlation was found between the Italian Pediatric MDS-R score and intention to resign from the job. No correlation was found between MD and years of experience. Females, nurses, and clinicians who cared for COVID-19 patients had a higher MD score. Conclusions: The Italian Pediatric MDS-R is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring MD among Italian health workers who care for critically ill children. Further research would be helpful in better investigating its applicability to the heterogeneous scenario of Italian Pediatric Critical Care Medicine.