A patient orientation program at a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine which method of delivery of a cancer orientation program contributed to higher levels of satisfaction and lower levels of anxiety for newly diagnosed patients with cancer and each patient's support person. DESIGN: A randomized study of patients with cancer and caregivers into one of three delivery methods for an orientation program or a control arm. SETTING: A National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in the midwestern United States. SAMPLE: Newly registered patients with cancer diagnoses and their identified support people. METHODS: The intervention consisted of an orientation video and booklet delivered by three separate methods: class, drop-in sessions, or information mailed to homes. Participants completed questionnaires before the intervention and three weeks after the intervention. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: State and trait anxiety, satisfaction, understanding of the organization, awareness and use of resources, and stress and coping. FINDINGS: The most successful accrual arms were the mailed intervention and control groups. The mailed intervention group compared to the control group reported higher levels of satisfaction with the cancer center, satisfaction with resources, understanding of the cancer center's structure, and satisfaction with healthcare professionals' communication with them. Fewer intervention group participants reported a lack of awareness of specific resources, and a larger percentage of the intervention group used available resources. Fewer benefits were noted with caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The mailed intervention was successful in improving several patient outcomes. It was shown to be especially helpful to those with high trait anxiety. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: A mailed orientation program can be a useful approach for increasing satisfaction with services.

National survey of cancer educators: salary and budget.

The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Patient Education Network (CPEN) is composed of cancer education leaders from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive and clinical cancer centers throughout the United States. Despite this commonality, the role and responsibilities of CPEN members vary across institutions. In an effort to further understand the commonalities and variances among the membership, the authors undertook a research project addressing salary and budget issues across NCI-designated cancer centers. The purpose of this study was to benchmark salaries and budgets of cancer educators at NCI-designated cancer centers; provide information to support a competitive salary range based on benchmarking with peers responsible for cancer patient education; and glean information on CPEN membership, roles, education levels, and job functions. This article highlights lessons learned and offers suggestions for using this information in a broader capacity for other cancer patient educators and patient educators in general.

Learning and support preferences of adult patients with cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify content items for an inclusive education curriculum for adult patients with cancer, as well as describe their learning and support preferences, determine the level of information provided to them, and assess the patients' interest in potential new services. DESIGN: Exploratory, descriptive survey research. SETTING: A National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. SAMPLE: All consenting adult patients with cancer who had appointments in the outpatient care setting during a two-week period (N = 1,310). METHODS: A 3-phase study identified core components of an inclusive educational curriculum, conducted structured interviews of patients with cancer, and validated findings in a selected sample. FINDINGS: The surveys were completed and returned by 48% (n = 625) of the patients. The most favored method for learning about all cancer topics was discussions with physicians (66%). Other preferred methods included brochures or booklets provided by physicians or nurses (33%), discussions with nurses (34%), self-selecting print media from information displays (20%), and talking with other patients with cancer (14%). Statistically significant differences in learning preferences were found among subgroups defined by age, gender, and education. CONCLUSIONS: Patients preferred interactive, interpersonal communication with physicians or nurses. In addition, the prevailing method of education delivery for patients with cancer was providing print materials that support and enhance knowledge shared in the patient-healthcare team communication. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: This study confirms the importance of the learning and support preferences of patients with cancer. To implement a successful education program for their patients, nurses must be aware of patients' preferences for learning new information. Time must be set aside for one-on-one communication with patients, and print materials must be easily accessible to healthcare providers to support the patient-education process.