Building resilience in oncology teams: Protocol for a realist evaluation of multiple cases.

BACKGROUND: Teams caring for people living with cancer face many difficult clinical situations that are compounded by the pandemic and can have serious consequences on professional and personal life. This study aims to better understand how a multi-component intervention builds resilience in oncology teams. The intervention is based on a salutogenic approach, theories and empirical research on team resilience at work. This intervention research involves partnership between researchers and stakeholders in defining situations of adversity and solutions appropriate to context. METHODS: The principles of realist evaluation are used to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations of a multi-component intervention developed by researchers and field partners concerned with the resilience of oncology teams. The multiple case study involves oncology teams in natural contexts in four healthcare establishments in Québec (Canada). Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed. Qualitative data from individual interviews, group interviews and observation are analyzed using thematic content analysis. Quantitative data are collected through validated questionnaires measuring team resilience at work and its effect on teaming processes and cost-effectiveness. Integration of these data enables the elucidation of associations between intervention, context, mechanism and outcome. DISCUSSION: The study will provide original data on contextual factors and mechanisms that promote team resilience in oncology settings. It suggests courses of action to better manage difficult situations that arise in a specialized care sector, minimize their negative effects and learn from them, during and after the waves of the pandemic. The mechanisms for problem resolution and arriving at realistic solutions to professional workforce and team effectiveness challenges can help improve practices in other settings.

Development and use of research vignettes to collect qualitative data from healthcare professionals: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the definition of vignette-based methodology in qualitative research and to identify key elements underpinning its development and utilisation in qualitative empirical studies involving healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Scoping review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SocINDEX (January 2000-December 2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Empirical studies in English or French with a qualitative design including an explicit methodological description of the development and/or use of vignettes to collect qualitative data from healthcare professionals. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full text was reviewed by pairs of researchers according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction included study characteristics, definition, development and utilisation of a vignette, as well as strengths, limitations and recommendations from authors of the included articles. Systematic qualitative thematic analysis was performed, followed by data matrices to display the findings according to the scoping review questions. RESULTS: Ten articles were included. An explicit definition of vignettes was provided in only half the studies. Variations of the development process (steps, expert consultation and pretesting), data collection and analysis demonstrate opportunities for improvement in rigour and transparency of the whole research process. Most studies failed to address quality criteria of the wider qualitative design and to discuss study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Vignette-based studies in qualitative research appear promising to deepen our understanding of sensitive and challenging situations lived by healthcare professionals. However, vignettes require conceptual clarification and robust methodological guidance so that researchers can systematically plan their study. Focusing on quality criteria of qualitative design can produce stronger evidence around measures that may help healthcare professionals reflect on and learn to cope with adversity.