Qualitative inquiry: a method for validating patient perceptions of palliative care while enrolled on a cancer clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is a vital component of patient-centered care. It has increasingly become central to the management and care of seriously ill patients by integrating physical, psychosocial, and spiritual supportive services. Through qualitative inquiry, this paper examines cancer patients' perceptions of the process and outcomes of the pain and palliative care consultative services they received while enrolled in a clinical trial. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions was conducted from a sub-sample of patients (n = 34) with advanced cancers enrolled in a randomized controlled trial exploring the efficacy of a palliative care consult service. Two open-ended questions focused on patient perceptions of continued participation on their primary cancer clinical trials and their perceptions of interdisciplinary communication. RESULTS: THREE OVERARCHING THEMES EMERGED WHEN ASKED WHETHER RECEIVING PAIN AND PALLIATIVE CARE SERVICES MADE THEM MORE LIKELY TO REMAIN ENROLLED IN THEIR PRIMARY CANCER CLINICAL TRIAL: patients' past experiences with care, self-identified personal characteristics and reasons for participation, and the quality of the partnership. Four themes emerged related to interdisciplinary communication including: the importance of developing relationships, facilitating open communication, having quality communication, and uncertainty about communication between the cancer clinical trial and palliative care teams. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the importance of qualitative inquiry methods to explore patient perceptions regarding the efficacy of palliative care services for cancer patients enrolled in a cancer clinical trial. Validation of patient perceptions through qualitative inquiry regarding their pain and palliative care needs can provide insight into areas for future implementation research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH Office of Human Subjects Research Protection OHSRP5443 and University of Pennsylvania 813365.

Beyond intuition: patient fever symptom experience.

CONTEXT: Fever is an important sign of inflammation recognized by health care practitioners and family caregivers. However, few empirical data obtained directly from patients exist to support many of the long-standing assumptions about the symptoms of fever. Many of the literature-cited symptoms, including chills, diaphoresis, and malaise, have limited scientific bases, yet they often represent a major justification for antipyretic administration. OBJECTIVES: To describe the patient experience of fever symptoms for the preliminary development of a fever assessment questionnaire. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 28 inpatients, the majority (86%) with cancer diagnoses, who had a recorded temperature of ≥38°C within approximately 12 hours before the interview. A semi-structured interview guide was used to elicit patient fever experiences. Thematic analyses were conducted by three independent research team members, and the data were verified through two rounds of consensus building. RESULTS: Eleven themes emerged. The participants reported experiences of feeling cold, weakness, warmth, sweating, nonspecific bodily sensations, gastrointestinal symptoms, headaches, emotional changes, achiness, respiratory symptoms, and vivid dreams/hallucinations. CONCLUSION: Our data not only confirm long-standing symptoms of fever but also suggest new symptoms and a level of variability and complexity not captured by the existing fever literature. Greater knowledge of patients' fever experiences will guide more accurate assessment of symptoms associated with fever and the impact of antipyretic treatments on patient symptoms in this common condition. Results from this study are contributing to the content validity of a future instrument that will evaluate patient outcomes related to fever interventions.

Naturopathic management of females with cervical atypia: a delphi process to explore current practice.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus is the most significant factor contributing to cervical cancer. Naturopathic doctors (NDs) implement an integrative approach to treat cervical atypia. This study explored practice consensus and variance among NDs. METHODS: A purposefully selected panel of six NDs participated in a modified Delphi study to validate practice. Three electronic web-based surveys were completed over nine months. RESULTS: Local and systemic treatments were included in all ND protocols. Six protocols included cervical cancer screening guidelines, green tea suppositories, and oral folic acid. Five protocols included oral green tea, diindoylemethane (DIM), and cartenoids. Four protocols incorporated Vitamin C. Two NDs considered escharotics when managing cervical atypia. All NDs included health behavior management in their protocols. CONCLUSION: Naturopathic management of cervical atypia varies across practitioners. However, in general, elements of management include (1) cervical cancer screening guidelines, (2) local and systemic treatments, (3) health behavior/lifestyle recommendations, and (4) immune system support.

Palliative care outcomes in surgical oncology patients with advanced malignancies: a mixed methods approach.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare outcomes and processes of hospital-based early palliative care with standard care in surgical oncology patients (N = 152). METHODS: A randomized, mixed methods, longitudinal study evaluated the effectiveness of a hospital-based Pain and Palliative Care Service (PPCS). Interviews were conducted presurgically and at follow-up visits up to 1 year. Primary outcome measures included the Gracely Pain Intensity and Unpleasantness Scales and the Symptom Distress Scale. Qualitative interviews assessed social support, satisfaction with care, and communication with providers. Survival analysis methods explored factors related to treatment crossover and study discontinuation. Models for repeated measures within subjects over time explored treatment and covariate effects on patient-reported pain and symptom distress. RESULTS: None of the estimated differences achieved statistical significance; however, for those who remained on study for 12 months, the PPCS group performed better than their standard of care counterparts. Patients identified consistent communication, emotional support, and pain and symptom management as positive contributions delivered by the PPCS. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether lower pain perceptions despite greater symptom distress were clinically meaningful; however, when coupled with the patients' perceptions of their increased resources and alternatives for pain control, one begins to see the value of an integrated PPCS.

Developing a Model of the Benefits and Burdens of Research Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting and retaining human participants in cancer clinical trials is challenging for many investigators. Although we expect participants to identify and weigh the benefits and burdens of research participation for themselves, it is not clear what burdens adult cancer participants perceive in relation to benefits. We identify key attributes and develop an initial conceptual framework of benefit and burden based on interviews with individuals enrolled in cancer clinical research. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 32 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials at a large northeastern cancer center. Krueger's guidelines for qualitative methodology were followed. RESULTS: Respondents reported a range of benefits and burdens associated with research participation. Benefits such as access to needed medications that subjects otherwise might not be able to afford, early detection and monitoring of the disease, potential for remission or cure, and the ability to take control of their lives through actively participating in the trial were identified. Burdens included the potentiality of side effects, worry and fear of the unknown, loss of job support, and financial concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Both benefit and burden influence research participation, including recruitment and retention in clinical trials. Dimensions of benefit and burden include physical, psychological, economic, familial, and social. Understanding the benefit-burden balance involved in the voluntary consent of human subjects is a fundamental tenet of research and important to ensure that subjects have made an informed decision regarding their decision to participate in clinical research.

Validating the clinical research nursing domain of practice.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a taxonomy for the domain of clinical research nursing. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Clinical research settings in the United States. SAMPLE: A purposefully selected expert panel of 22 nurses who were actively practicing or supervising in a clinical research environment. METHODS: A study team consisting of nurses with experience in clinical research synthesized peer-reviewed articles, academic curricula, professional guidelines, position descriptions, and expert opinion. Using the Delphi technique, three rounds of surveys were conducted to validate the taxonomy. The three sequential questionnaires were completed over five months. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Activities performed by nurses in a clinical research setting. FINDINGS: A taxonomy for clinical research nursing was validated with five dimensions and 52 activities: Clinical Practice (4 activities), Study Management (23 activities), Care Coordination and Continuity (10 activities), Human Subjects Protection (6 activities), and Contributing to the Science (9 activities). CONCLUSIONS: This study validated activities for direct care providers and nurses with the primary focus of research coordination. The findings identify a variety of activities that are unique to nurses in a clinical research setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses play an integral role in the clinical research enterprise. Validating a taxonomy for the specialty of clinical research nursing allows for roles to be compared across settings, competency requirements to be defined, and nursing organizations to be guided in the development of specialty certification.