P K Flora1, J L Bender2, A S Miller1, L Parvin3, S Soheilipour3, N Maharaj3, E Milosevic1, A Matthew1, A Kazanjian3. 1. ELLICSR, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Avenue, Munk Building, B PMB 130, Toronto, ON, M5G2C4, Canada. 2. ELLICSR, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Avenue, Munk Building, B PMB 130, Toronto, ON, M5G2C4, Canada. Jackie.bender@uhnresearch.ca. 3. School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T1Z3, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Trained peer navigators can offer valuable peer support and mentorship to cancer patients and caregivers due to their highly relevant and unique perspective about the disease experience. In order to define the role of prostate cancer (PC) peer navigators within the cancer care system, it is important to establish the essential competencies of a PC peer navigator. We systematically identified and verified a set of core competencies for PC peer navigators and present a competency framework for PC peer navigators. METHODS: In phase 1, we conducted formative research consisting of a literature review and environmental scan as well as a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews. In phase 2, we drafted and mapped competencies. Finally in phase 3, expert stakeholders completed an anonymous survey to indicate whether they endorsed the competencies and to rank the importance of each competency to the peer navigator role. Open-ended feedback was also provided for each competency. RESULTS: Six core competency domains emerged: (1) self as navigator, (2) communication, (3) knowledge/information, (4) facilitate patient-centred care, (5) eHealth/technology, and (6) caregiver needs. Forty-seven core competency statements were mapped to these domains. Expert stakeholders (n = 27) included cancer survivors, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Most (89%) of core competency statements were endorsed by stakeholders and received high priority ratings, whereas only five of the competencies were less uniformly endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to list core competencies for PC peer navigators and may offer guidance for standardizing the PC peer navigator role and training.
PURPOSE: Trained peer navigators can offer valuable peer support and mentorship to cancerpatients and caregivers due to their highly relevant and unique perspective about the disease experience. In order to define the role of prostate cancer (PC) peer navigators within the cancer care system, it is important to establish the essential competencies of a PC peer navigator. We systematically identified and verified a set of core competencies for PC peer navigators and present a competency framework for PC peer navigators. METHODS: In phase 1, we conducted formative research consisting of a literature review and environmental scan as well as a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews. In phase 2, we drafted and mapped competencies. Finally in phase 3, expert stakeholders completed an anonymous survey to indicate whether they endorsed the competencies and to rank the importance of each competency to the peer navigator role. Open-ended feedback was also provided for each competency. RESULTS: Six core competency domains emerged: (1) self as navigator, (2) communication, (3) knowledge/information, (4) facilitate patient-centred care, (5) eHealth/technology, and (6) caregiver needs. Forty-seven core competency statements were mapped to these domains. Expert stakeholders (n = 27) included cancer survivors, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Most (89%) of core competency statements were endorsed by stakeholders and received high priority ratings, whereas only five of the competencies were less uniformly endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to list core competencies for PC peer navigators and may offer guidance for standardizing the PC peer navigator role and training.
Authors: Halina Sklenarova; Arne Krümpelmann; Markus W Haun; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Johannes Huber; Michael Thomas; Eva C Winkler; Wolfgang Herzog; Mechthild Hartmann Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Constance H C Drossaert; Erik Taal; Bret R Shaw; Erwin R Seydel; Mart A F J van de Laar Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2008-03
Authors: Lise Fillion; Marie de Serres; Sandra Cook; Richard L Goupil; Isabelle Bairati; Richard Doll Journal: Semin Oncol Nurs Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.315
Authors: Tina Hsu; Matthew Loscalzo; Rupal Ramani; Stephen Forman; Leslie Popplewell; Karen Clark; Vani Katheria; Tao Feng; Rex Strowbridge; Redmond Rinehart; Dan Smith; Keith Matthews; Jeff Dillehunt; Arti Hurria Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Joanne Hohenadel; Elizabeth Kaegi; Jack Laidlaw; Galina Kovacik; Andrea Cortinois; Rita Kang; Alejandro R Jadad Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2007-04
Authors: J Cockle-Hearne; F Charnay-Sonnek; L Denis; H E Fairbanks; D Kelly; S Kav; K Leonard; E van Muilekom; P Fernandez-Ortega; B T Jensen; S Faithfull Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jacqueline L Bender; Natasha Puri; Sarah Salih; Norma M D'Agostino; Argerie Tsimicalis; A Fuchsia Howard; Sheila N Garland; Karine Chalifour; Emily K Drake; Anthony Marrato; Nikki L McKean; Abha A Gupta Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.677