Lessons learned from a cancer knowledge translation grants program: results of an evaluation.

Background: A novel way to build capacity in knowledge translation (kt) is through kt-focused grant competitions. Since 2009, the Knowledge Translation Research Network (KT-Net) has had a cancer-related kt grants program. We undertook an evaluation of the program to determine if KT-Net was achieving its aims of building capacity in cancer kt, advancing the science of kt, building partnerships, and leveraging funding. Methods: An adapted framework guided the evaluation. Nine funded studies from 4 competitions were included. Semi-structured telephone interviews were held with researchers, stakeholders (including knowledge users), members of grant review panels, and experts in kt. Interview transcripts were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. A review of proposal and report documents was also conducted. Results: Funded researchers indicated that the grant competition was an essential funding program for cancer kt research. Competitions were perceived to build capacity in cancer kt among early-career researchers and to encourage innovative cancer kt research for which alternative funding sources are limited. The grants program resulted in incremental gains in advancing the science of kt. Suggestions to improve the program included stronger partnerships between the funder and the provincial cancer-system organization to optimize the application of research that is relevant to the organization's strategic objectives. Conclusions: The grants program met many of its aims by providing cancer researchers with an opportunity to gain capacity in cancer kt and by making incremental advances in kt science. Suggestions to improve the program included closer partnerships between the funder and the cancer-system organization.

Multigene expression profile testing in breast cancer: is there a role for family physicians?

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (fps) play a role in aspects of personalized medicine in cancer, including assessment of increased risk because of family history. Little is known about the potential role of fps in supporting cancer patients who undergo tumour gene expression profile (gep) testing. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study with qualitative and quantitative components. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with fps and cancer specialists about the role of fps in breast cancer gep testing were obtained during studies conducted within the pan-Canadian canimpact research program. We determined the number of visits by breast cancer patients to a fp between the first medical oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy, a period when patients might be considering results of gep testing. RESULTS: The fps and cancer specialists felt that ordering gep tests and explaining the results was the role of the oncologist. A new fp role was identified relating to the fp-patient relationship: supporting patients in making adjuvant therapy decisions informed by gep tests by considering the patient's comorbid conditions, social situation, and preferences. Lack of fp knowledge and resources, and challenges in fp-oncologist communication were seen as significant barriers to that role. Between 28% and 38% of patients visited a fp between the first oncology visit and the start of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an emerging role for fps in supporting patients who are making adjuvant treatment decisions after receiving the results of gep testing. For success in this new role, education and point-of-care tools, together with more effective communication strategies between fps and oncologists, are needed.