ABSTRACT
Despite the recognized need for clinical nurses to engage in the conduct of research, little is known about their research experiences. This article describes the experiences of nurses who delivered the communication intervention in a behavioral oncology clinical trial for parents of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted of nurse interveners' (NIs') reflections on their experiences delivering the communication intervention. Ten data-generating questions were developed to guide NIs' reflections. Twelve NIs responded via verbal discussions. Six of these also provided written responses. Overall, nurses' experiences as interveners were powerful and positive, and included time and space to be fully present with patients and families. Nurse interveners identified barriers to their involvement in research related to time constraints, administrative support, physical space to privately conduct the intervention, and difficulties maintaining expertise with the intervention. The importance of ongoing collaboration between nurses, unit staff, leaders, and study teams was corroborated. An unexpected finding was the importance of reflective clinical research.
Subject(s)
Communication , Neoplasms/psychology , Parent-Child Relations , Adolescent , Clinical Nursing Research , Humans , Pediatric Nursing , Young AdultABSTRACT
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic solid tumors who had progressed on at least one line of standard of care therapy were referred to the Indiana University Health Precision Genomics Program. Tumor samples were submitted for DNA & RNA next-generation sequencing, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry for actionable targets. A multi-disciplinary tumor board reviewed all results. For each patient, the ratio of progression-free survival (PFS) of the genomically guided line of therapy divided by the PFS of their prior line was calculated. Patients whose PFS ratio was ≥ 1.3 were deemed to have a meaningful improvement in PFS. RESULTS: From April 2014-October 2015, 168 patients were evaluated and 101 patients achieved adequate clinical follow-up for analysis. 19 of 44 (43.2%) patients treated with genomically guided therapy attained a PFS ratio ≥ 1.3 vs. 3 of 57 (5.3%) treated with non-genomically guided therapy (p < 0.0001). Similarly, overall PFS ratios (irrespective of cutoff) were higher for patients with genomically guided therapy vs non-genomically guided therapy (p = 0.05). Further, patients treated with genomically guided therapy had a superior median PFS compared to those treated with non-genomically guided therapy (86 days vs. 49 days, p = 0.005, H.R. = 0.55, 95% C.I.:0.37-0.84). CONCLUSION: Patients with refractory metastatic cancer who receive genomically guided therapy have improved PFS ratios and longer median PFS compared to patients who do not receive genomically guided therapy.