Sylvie D Lambert1,2, Lydia Ould Brahim3, Marjorie Morrison4, Afaf Girgis5, Mark Yaffe6,7, Eric Belzile6, Karissa Clayberg6, John Robinson8, Sally Thorne9, Joan L Bottorff10, Wendy Duggleby11, Heather Campbell-Enns12, Youngmee Kim13, Carmen G Loiselle3,14. 1. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, 680 Sherbrooke West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2M7, Canada. sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca. 2. St. Mary's Research Centre, Hayes Pavilion, 3830 Lacombe Avenue, suite 4758, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1M5, Canada. sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca. 3. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, 680 Sherbrooke West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2M7, Canada. 4. Canceraction, 145 King Street West, Suite # 900, Toronto, ON, M5H 1J8, Canada. 5. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Building 1, Campbell St, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia. 6. St. Mary's Research Centre, Hayes Pavilion, 3830 Lacombe Avenue, suite 4758, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1M5, Canada. 7. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University and St. Mary's Hospital Center, Hayes Pavilion, 3830 Lacombe Avenue, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1M5, Canada. 8. Tom Baker Cancer Center and Cumming School of Medicine, Division of Psychosocial Oncology, 1331 29 St NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N2, Canada. 9. School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, T201-2211 Wesbrook Mall., Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada. 10. School of Nursing, University of British Columbia - Okanagan, ART 1147 Research Road, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada. 11. Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Level 3, Edmonton Clinic Health Academ, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada. 12. Cancercare Manitoba, 675 McDermot Ave, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0V9, Canada. 13. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, 5665 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA. 14. Gerald Bronfman Department of Oncology, McGill University, 5100 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 720, Montreal, Quebec, H4A 3T2, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With an increased investment in psychosocial caregiving research, it becomes critical to establish the need for data of key stakeholders and future strategic directions. The purpose of this international Delphi study was to engage caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and managers to identify priority topics for caregiver research in cancer care. METHODS: A three-round, online Delphi survey took place. In round 1, stakeholders generated caregiver research topics by answering an open-ended question. Content analysis of stakeholders' answers identified topics to be included in the round 2 survey to rate their importance. The round 3 survey included topics with less than 80% agreement for stakeholders to reconsider in light of other participants' responses. RESULTS: In round 1, eighty-six topics were generated by 103 clinicians, 63 researchers, 61 caregivers, and 22 managers and grouped into 10 content areas: impact of cancer, support programs, vulnerable caregivers, technology, role in health care, caregiver-centered care, knowledge translation, environmental scan, financial cost of caregiving, and policy. Across rounds 2 and 3, nine topics achieved consensus for all stakeholder panels (e.g., home care interventions), with three of these emphasizing more research needed on the financial impact of informal caregiving (e.g., financial impact of "burnout" for caregivers and society). Of note, vulnerable caregivers and use of technology were content areas prioritized particularly by managers and researchers, but not caregivers. CONCLUSION: By establishing a confluence of perspectives around research priorities, this study ensures the interests of key stakeholders are integrated in strategic directions, increasing the likelihood of research capable of influencing practice, education, and policy.
PURPOSE: With an increased investment in psychosocial caregiving research, it becomes critical to establish the need for data of key stakeholders and future strategic directions. The purpose of this international Delphi study was to engage caregivers, clinicians, researchers, and managers to identify priority topics for caregiver research in cancer care. METHODS: A three-round, online Delphi survey took place. In round 1, stakeholders generated caregiver research topics by answering an open-ended question. Content analysis of stakeholders' answers identified topics to be included in the round 2 survey to rate their importance. The round 3 survey included topics with less than 80% agreement for stakeholders to reconsider in light of other participants' responses. RESULTS: In round 1, eighty-six topics were generated by 103 clinicians, 63 researchers, 61 caregivers, and 22 managers and grouped into 10 content areas: impact of cancer, support programs, vulnerable caregivers, technology, role in health care, caregiver-centered care, knowledge translation, environmental scan, financial cost of caregiving, and policy. Across rounds 2 and 3, nine topics achieved consensus for all stakeholder panels (e.g., home care interventions), with three of these emphasizing more research needed on the financial impact of informal caregiving (e.g., financial impact of "burnout" for caregivers and society). Of note, vulnerable caregivers and use of technology were content areas prioritized particularly by managers and researchers, but not caregivers. CONCLUSION: By establishing a confluence of perspectives around research priorities, this study ensures the interests of key stakeholders are integrated in strategic directions, increasing the likelihood of research capable of influencing practice, education, and policy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Caregivers; Delphi; End-user engagement; Family; Research priorities
Authors: Teresa Hagan Thomas; Grace B Campbell; Young Ji Lee; Mary C Roberge; Erin E Kent; Jennifer L Steel; Donna M Posluszny; Janet A Arida; Sarah M Belcher; Paula R Sherwood; Heidi S Donovan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Chandylen L Nightingale; Katherine R Sterba; Laurie E McLouth; Erin E Kent; Emily V Dressler; Alexandra Dest; Anna C Snavely; Christian S Adonizio; Mark Wojtowicz; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Matthew F Hudson; Joseph M Unger; Charles S Kamen; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sarah-May Blaschke; Sylvie D Lambert; Patricia M Livingston; Sanchia Aranda; Anna Boltong; Penelope Schofield; Suzanne K Chambers; Meinir Krishnasamy; Anna Ugalde Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Karin Oechsle; Tabea Theißen; Maria Heckel; Lisa Schwenzitzki; Anneke Ullrich; Christoph Ostgathe Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Lindsay R Duncan; S Nicole Culos-Reed; Laura Hallward; Celestia S Higano; Ekaterina Loban; Anne Katz; Manon De Raad; Janet Ellis; Melissa B Korman; Carly Sears; Cindy Ibberson; Lauren Walker; Eric Belzile; Paramita Saha-Chaudhuri; Helen McTaggart-Cowan; Stuart Peacock Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Alex Molassiotis; Anne Fraser; Melissa Culligan; Pippa Labuc; Degi L Csaba; Andreas Charalambous Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Daniela Bodschwinna; Inga Lorenz; Natalie Bauereiss; Harald Gündel; Harald Baumeister; Klaus Hoenig Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-05 Impact factor: 2.692