Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020–2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds. Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known:• Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care.• Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children’s procedural care. What is New:• This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives.• The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.

The prevalence of internet gaming disorders (IGD) is considerably high among youth, especially with the social isolation imposed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. IGD adversely affects mental health, quality of life, and academic performance. The Internet Gaming Disorder Scale (IGDS9-SF) is designed to detect IGD according to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. However, inconsistent results are reported on its capacity to diagnose IGD evenly across different cultures. To ensure the suitability of the IGDS9-SF as a global measure of IGD, this study examined the psychometric properties of the IGDS9-SF in a sample of Sri Lankan university students (N = 322, mean age = 17.2 ± 0.6, range = 16–18 years, 56.5% males) and evaluated its measurement invariance across samples from Sri Lanka, Turkey, Australia, and the USA. Among Sri Lankan students, a unidimensional structure expressed good fit, invariance across different groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and income), adequate criterion validity (strong correlation with motives of internet gaming, daily gaming duration, and sleep quality), and good reliability (alpha = 0.81). Males and online multiplayers expressed higher IGD levels, greater time spent gaming, and more endorsement of gaming motives (e.g., Social and Coping) than females and offline players. Across countries, the IGDS9-SF was invariant at the configural, metric, and scalar levels, although strict invariance was not maintained. The lowest and highest IGD levels were reported among Turkish and American respondents, respectively. In conclusion, the IGDS9-SF can be reliably used to measure IGD among Sri Lankan youth. Because the scale holds scalar invariance across countries, its scores can be used to compare IGD levels in the studied countries.

The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of decision making in the care of children with palliative care needs in Jordan, from the perspective of their mothers. This study employed a collective qualitative case study approach. Data were collected in 3 pediatric wards in a Jordanian hospital. The study used 2 data collection methods: participant observation (197 observational hours) and 56 semi-structured interviews with 24 mothers, 12 physicians and 20 nurses. The findings show how Jordanian mothers seek to transfer the role of decision making to physicians, as they perceive themselves to be unable to make decisions about critical issues related to the treatment of their children. Mothers had a widespread apprehension of “future guilt,” especially when they feared that any decisions they might make could have an adverse impact on their children. Contrary to the predominant pattern, some mothers took a proactive approach towards decision making about their children’s treatment. These mothers requested detailed information from primary physicians and sought different sources of knowledge such as second opinions, reading online resources, or talking to other parents who had a child with similar circumstances. The study concludes that mothers prefer to involve physicians in decisions about their children’s healthcare and treatment to eliminate their fear of probable future guilt; this modifies any tendency to autonomously decide for their children. These findings are underpinned by the Jordanian culture in which doctors’ opinions are highly regarded.