A qualitative analysis of algorithm-based decision support usability testing for symptom management across the trajectory of cancer care: one size does not fit all.

BACKGROUND: Adults with cancer experience symptoms that change across the disease trajectory. Due to the distress and cost associated with uncontrolled symptoms, improving symptom management is an important component of quality cancer care. Clinical decision support (CDS) is a promising strategy to integrate clinical practice guideline (CPG)-based symptom management recommendations at the point of care. METHODS: The objectives of this project were to develop and evaluate the usability of two symptom management algorithms (constipation and fatigue) across the trajectory of cancer care in patients with active disease treated in comprehensive or community cancer care settings to surveillance of cancer survivors in primary care practices. A modified ADAPTE process was used to develop algorithms based on national CPGs. Usability testing involved semi-structured interviews with clinicians from varied care settings, including comprehensive and community cancer centers, and primary care. The transcripts were analyzed with MAXQDA using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method. A cross tabs analysis was also performed to assess the prevalence of themes and subthemes by cancer care setting. RESULTS: A total of 17 clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) were interviewed for usability testing. Three main themes emerged: (1) Algorithms as useful, (2) Symptom management differences, and (3) Different target end-users. The cross-tabs analysis demonstrated differences among care trajectories and settings that originated in the Symptom management differences theme. The sub-themes of "Differences between diseases" and "Differences between care trajectories" originated from participants working in a comprehensive cancer center, which tends to be disease-specific locations for patients on active treatment. Meanwhile, participants from primary care identified the sub-theme of "Differences in settings," indicating that symptom management strategies are care setting specific. CONCLUSIONS: While CDS can help promote evidence-based symptom management, systems providing care recommendations need to be specifically developed to fit patient characteristics and clinical context. Findings suggest that one set of algorithms will not be applicable throughout the entire cancer trajectory. Unique CDS for symptom management will be needed for patients who are cancer survivors being followed in primary care settings.

Developing a Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) to promote patient-centered communication in ovarian cancer care: A design thinking approach.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-centered communication (PCC) occurs when clinicians respond to patients' needs, preferences, and concerns. While PCC is associated with better health-related quality of life in patients with cancer, patients with ovarian cancer have reported unmet communication needs. We used design thinking to develop an intervention to promote PCC in ovarian cancer care. METHODS: Following the steps of design thinking, we empathized with stakeholders by reviewing the literature, then created stakeholder and journey maps to define the design challenge. To ideate solutions, we developed a challenge map. Finally, we developed wireframe prototypes and tested them with stakeholders. RESULTS: Empathizing revealed that misaligned visit priorities precipitated suboptimal communication. Defining the design challenge and ideating solutions highlighted the need to normalize preference assessments, promote communication self-efficacy, and enhance visit efficiency. The Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) elicits patients' needs and preferences and delivers communication guidance at the point of care. Stakeholders approved of the prototype. CONCLUSION: Design thinking provided a systematic approach to empathizing with stakeholders, identifying challenges, and innovating solutions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To our knowledge, the CASI is the first intervention to set the visit agenda and support communication from within the electronic health record. Future research will assess its usability and acceptability.

Work-health balance of cancer survivors returning to work: A meta-ethnography.

PURPOSE: This meta-ethnography investigates the multifaceted health-related experiences of cancer survivors returning to work (RTW), recognizing the pivotal role of employment in overall well-being, particularly in the context of increasing cancer cases among working-age adults. METHOD: Following the methodology of Noblit and Hare, a comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2013 to 2023 in databases including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Qualitative studies assessing cancer survivors' experiences, motivation, concern, resilience, and need in the process of RTW were identified. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Checklist, and their findings were subsequently synthesized. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included for analysis. The finding revealed five key themes: motivations (voluntary and involuntary), cancer-related concerns, resilience, needs for cancer healthcare support, and workplace accommodation. Voluntarily RTW was primarily linked to desires of normalcy, while involuntary RTW was often financially driven. Cancer survivors often face physical, psychological, and social challenges in the RTW process. Resilience played a crucial role in their readaptation to the workplace. Participants expressed the need for additional guidance from healthcare providers and tailored support from the workplace to facilitate a smoother RTW experience. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors aspire to be actively engaged, have their specific needs addressed, and achieve success in their return-to-work endeavors. Occupational guidance and accommodation from healthcare providers and employers play a pivotal role in empowering survivors to balance cancer and work, facilitating the return-to-work process, and enhancing the quality of survivorship.

Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams in a Regional Cancer Institute: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

OBJECTIVES: Oncology is a rapidly changing clinical setting. Research has shown improved patient outcomes and staff satisfaction following interprofessional collaborative education, but there has been limited research on perceptions of interprofessional collaboration among oncology health care professionals. The aims of this study were to: 1) assess attitudes of health care professionals toward interprofessional teams in oncology care, and 2) assess for differences in attitudes across various demographic and workplace groups. DATA SOURCES: The research design was an electronic cross-sectional survey. The main instrument utilized was the Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams (ATIHCT) survey. A total of 187 oncology health care professionals from a regional New England cancer institute completed the survey. The ATIHCT mean score was high (M = 4.07, SD = 0.51). Analysis revealed statistically significant differences in mean score among participant age groups (P = .03). Significant differences (P = .01) were also noted between different professional groups and their time constraints sub-scale score on the ATIHCT scale. A higher mean score occurred in participants who had a current certification (M = 4.13, SD = 0.50) compared to those without (M = 4.05, SD = 0.46). CONCLUSION: High overall scores in attitudes toward health care teams suggest that cancer care settings are primed for interprofessional care model implementation. Future studies should examine strategies to improve attitudes among specific groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses are in a position to lead interprofessional teamwork in the clinical setting. Further research is necessary to examine best collaborative models in health care to support interprofessional teamwork.