Ovarian cancer patients' and their family members' perspectives on novel vaccine and virotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Some of the most promising avenues of cancer clinical investigation center on immunotherapeutic approaches. These approaches have provided notable gains in cancer therapeutics with recent Food and Drug Administration approvals of agents of this class in several types of cancers, although gains for ovarian cancer lag behind. This study examined perceptions of therapeutic trials including immunotherapy and virotherapy among ovarian cancer patients and their family members. METHODS: A total of 72 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 33 patients and 39 family members at two National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Eligible patients were diagnosed with epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and had experience with clinical trial conversations; family members were nominated by patients and interviewed separately. Applied thematic analysis was used to understand and interpret the data. RESULTS: More participants were aware of vaccine trials than virus trials, although more than half had heard of at least one of them. Initial reactions to vaccine trials were generally favorable. For many, childhood experience with vaccines lent a familiar frame of reference. Virus trials elicited more negative initial reactions, including the use of adjectives such as "scary" and "dreadful." Viruses seemed contagious or difficult to control. Increased receptivity to these trials occurred in the context of limited therapeutic options and cancer recurrence. Most participants, including those not immediately drawn to these types of trials, indicated openness to learning more. CONCLUSION: Although vaccine and viral trials are both immunologically based therapeutic approaches, patients who are offered these trials may perceive their potential benefit and safety quite differently. There is a need to consider terminology, solicit and address "gut reactions," and provide information that enables patients and their family members to better understand the science behind these trials.

Integrated care in the emergency department: a complex adaptive systems perspective.

Emergency clinicians undertake boundary-work as they facilitate patient trajectories through the Emergency Department (ED). Emergency clinicians must manage the constantly-changing dynamics at the boundaries of the ED and other hospital departments and organizations whose services emergency clinicians seek to integrate. Integrating the care that differing clinical groups provide, the services EDs offer, and patients' needs across this journey is challenging. The journey is usually accounted for in a linear way - as a "continuity of care" problem. In this paper, we instead conceptualize integrated care in the ED using a complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective. A CAS perspective accounts for the degree to which other departments and units outside of the ED are integrated, and appropriately described, using CAS concepts and language. One year of ethnographic research was conducted, combining observation and semi-structured interviews, in the EDs of two tertiary referral hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We found the CAS approach to be salient to analyzing integrated care in the ED because the processes of categorization, diagnosis and discharge are primarily about the linkages between services, and the communication and negotiation required to enact those linkages, however imperfectly they occur in practice. Emergency clinicians rapidly process large numbers of high-need patients, in a relatively efficient system of care inadequately explained by linear models. A CAS perspective exposes integrated care as management of the patient trajectory within porous, shifting and negotiable boundaries.