BACKGROUND: The translation of research evidence into practice is facilitated by clinical trials such as those sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) that help disseminate cancer care innovations to community-based physicians and provider organizations. However, CCOP participation involves unsubsidized costs and organizational challenges that raise concerns about sustained provider participation in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to improve our understanding of why providers participate in the CCOP in order to inform the decision-making process of administrators, clinicians, organizations, and policy-makers considering CCOP participation. RESEARCH METHODS: We conducted a multi-site qualitative study of five provider organizations engaged with the CCOP. We interviewed 41 administrative and clinician key informants, asking about what motivated CCOP participation, and what benefits they associated with involvement. We deductively and inductively analyzed verbatim interview transcripts, and explored themes that emerged. RESULTS: Interviewees expressed both "altruistic" and "self-interested" motives for CCOP participation. Altruistic reasons included a desire to increase access to clinical trials and feeling an obligation to patients. Self-interested reasons included the desire to enhance reputation, and a need to integrate disparate cancer care activities. Perceived benefits largely matched expressed motives for CCOP participation, and included internal and external benefits to the organization, and quality of care benefits for both patients and participating physicians. CONCLUSION: The motives and benefits providers attributed to CCOP participation are consistent with translational research goals, offering evidence that participation can contribute value to providers by expanding access to innovative medical care for patients in need.
BACKGROUND: The translation of research evidence into practice is facilitated by clinical trials such as those sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) that help disseminate cancer care innovations to community-based physicians and provider organizations. However, CCOP participation involves unsubsidized costs and organizational challenges that raise concerns about sustained provider participation in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to improve our understanding of why providers participate in the CCOP in order to inform the decision-making process of administrators, clinicians, organizations, and policy-makers considering CCOP participation. RESEARCH METHODS: We conducted a multi-site qualitative study of five provider organizations engaged with the CCOP. We interviewed 41 administrative and clinician key informants, asking about what motivated CCOP participation, and what benefits they associated with involvement. We deductively and inductively analyzed verbatim interview transcripts, and explored themes that emerged. RESULTS: Interviewees expressed both "altruistic" and "self-interested" motives for CCOP participation. Altruistic reasons included a desire to increase access to clinical trials and feeling an obligation to patients. Self-interested reasons included the desire to enhance reputation, and a need to integrate disparate cancer care activities. Perceived benefits largely matched expressed motives for CCOP participation, and included internal and external benefits to the organization, and quality of care benefits for both patients and participating physicians. CONCLUSION: The motives and benefits providers attributed to CCOP participation are consistent with translational research goals, offering evidence that participation can contribute value to providers by expanding access to innovative medical care for patients in need.
Authors: Kristin L Reiter; Paula H Song; Lori Minasian; Marjorie Good; Bryan J Weiner; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amanda K Henley; Elizabeth Collier; Kim Robertson; Marial A Biard; Kathryn Bruno; Hannah Bush; Erinn Frees; Caitlin Krater; Sarah Woolever; Debra S Burns; Sheri L Robb Journal: J Music Ther Date: 2020-07-18
Authors: Margaret E Gruen; Emily H Griffith; Sarah M A Caney; Mark Rishniw; B Duncan X Lascelles Journal: J Am Vet Med Assoc Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 1.936