Vignette-based methodologies are frequently used to examine judgments and decision-making processes, including clinical judgments made by health professionals. Concerns are sometimes raised that vignettes do not accurately reflect “real world” phenomena, and that this affects the validity of results and conclusions of these studies. This article provides an overview of the defining features, design variations, strengths, and weaknesses of vignette studies as a way of examining how health professionals form clinical judgments (e.g., assigning diagnoses, selecting treatments). As a “hybrid” of traditional survey and experimental methods, vignette studies can offer aspects of both the high internal validity of experiments and the high external validity of survey research in order to disentangle multiple predictors of clinician behavior. When vignette studies are well designed to test specific questions about judgments and decision-making, they can be highly generalizable to “real life” behavior, while overcoming the ethical, practical, and scientific limitations associated with alternative methods (e.g., observation, self-report, standardized patients, archival analysis). We conclude with methodological recommendations and a description of how vignette methodologies are being used to investigate clinicians’ diagnostic decisions in case-controlled field studies for the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders, and how these studies illustrate the preceding concepts and recommendations

Objective In response to the rapidly unfolding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in spring 2020, we developed a caregiver-report measure to understand the extent to which children and families were exposed to events related to COVID-19 and their perceptions of its impact. This article reports on the factor structure and psychometric properties of this measure. Methods The COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales (CEFIS) were developed by a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team using a rapid iterative process. Data from 1805 caregivers recruited from 28 programs at 15 institutions across the United States were collected from May—September 2020. We examined the underlying structure of the CEFIS using exploratory factor analyses and its internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). Results Participants reported a range of COVID-19-related events (M = 8.71 events of 25). On the bidirectional 4-point impact scale, mean scores were mostly above the midpoint, indicating a slightly negative impact. Cronbach’s alpha was excellent for Exposure (α = .80) and Impact (α = .92). Factor analysis identified six factors for Exposure (COVID-19 experiences, Access to essentials, Disruptions to living conditions, Loss of income, Family caregiving and activities, and Designation as an essential worker). There were three factors for Impact (Personal well-being, Family interactions, and Distress). Discussion The CEFIS has strong factors assessing Exposure to events related to COVID-19, and the Impact of these events on families of children in pediatric healthcare. These initial validation data support use of the CEFIS for measuring the effect of the pandemic.

Many oncologists and psychosocial leaders perceive that the delivery of psychosocial care at their center is consistent with the Standards. However, care is quite variable, with evidence for the value of more integrated models of psychosocial services.

Background Fifteen evidence-based Standards for Psychosocial Care for Children with Cancer and their Families were published in 20151. The Standards cover a broad range of topics and circumstances and require qualified multidisciplinary staff to be implemented. This paper presents data on the availability of psychosocial staff and existing practices at pediatric oncology programs in the United States, providing data that can be used to advocate for expanded services and prepare for implementation of the Standards. Procedure Up to three healthcare professionals from 144 programs (72% response rate) participated in an online survey conducted June – December 2016. There were 99 pediatric oncologists with clinical leadership responsibility (Medical Director/Clinical Director), 132 psychosocial leaders in pediatric oncology (Director of Psychosocial Services/Manager/most senior staff member), and 58 administrators in pediatric oncology (Administrative Director/Business Administrator/Director of Operations). The primary outcomes were number and type of psychosocial staff, psychosocial practices, and identified challenges in the delivery of psychosocial care. Results Over 90% of programs have social workers and child life specialists who provide care to children with cancer and their families. Fewer programs have psychologists (60%), neuropsychologists (31%) or psychiatrists (19%). Challenges in psychosocial care are primarily based on pragmatic issues related to funding and reimbursement. Conclusion Most participating pediatric oncology programs appear to have at least the basic level of staffing necessary to implement of some of the Standards. However, the lack of a more comprehensive multidisciplinary team is a likely barrier in the implementation of the full set of Standards.