Premium
Closing evidence‐practice gaps in lung cancer: Results from multi‐methods priority setting in the clinical context
Author(s) -
McGregor Deborah,
Rankin Nicole,
Butow Phyllis,
York Sarah,
White Kate,
Phillips Jane,
Stone Emily,
Barnes David,
Jones Ruth,
Shaw Tim
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
asia‐pacific journal of clinical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.73
H-Index - 29
eISSN - 1743-7563
pISSN - 1743-7555
DOI - 10.1111/ajco.12499
Subject(s) - referral , medicine , psychosocial , palliative care , multidisciplinary approach , context (archaeology) , family medicine , nursing , health care , focus group , general partnership , population , qualitative research , lung cancer , qualitative property , oncology , business , psychiatry , environmental health , paleontology , social science , finance , marketing , machine learning , sociology , computer science , economics , biology , economic growth
Aim To establish priorities for implementation research to reduce evidence‐practice gaps in lung cancer care. Methods A modified Nominal Group Technique was used to prioritize evidence‐practice gaps in lung cancer care with oncology professionals at three clinical study sites: one rural and two metropolitan. A multimethods design was used to gather quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were thematically analyzed. Results Forty‐two health professionals participated, representing a multidisciplinary spread across the care trajectory. A standout priority was identified: reducing the time from first presentation of symptoms to diagnosis and referral for treatment (gap 1), as well as significant focus on a number of presented priorities, including: utilization of active treatments; timely referral to palliative care services; screening as a potential diagnostic tool; and focusing on the care needs of our vulnerable population groups. We describe emerging themes from the qualitative analysis, including: patient help‐seeking behavior, provider knowledge about lung cancer, service factors, patient and provider factors in not receiving treatment, the “flow on” effect of variations from optimal care, vulnerable populations of patients, psychosocial needs and early referral to palliative care services. Conclusion This study is an example of a priority setting partnership between clinicians and health researchers. The priorities highlighted by this study guide future decision making for collaborative implementation of research in lung cancer care.