Conectar
To develop and psychometrically test a comprehensive Cancer Nurse Self-Assessment Tool (CaN-SAT).
Modified Delphi to assess content validity and cross-sectional survey to assess reliability and validity.
Phase 1: An expert group developed the tool structure and item content. Phase 2: Through a modified Delphi, cancer nursing experts rated the importance of each element of practice and assessed the relevance and clarity of each item. Content Validation Indexes (CVI) were calculated, and a CVI of ≥ 0.78 was required for items to be included. Phase 3: Cancer nurses participated in a survey to test internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha coefficients) and known-group validity (through Mann–Whitney U tests). This study was reported using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) checklist.
The CaN-SAT underwent two rounds of Delphi with 24 then 15 cancer nursing experts. All elements of practice were rated as important. Only three items achieved a CVI < 0.78 after round one; however, based on open-ended comments, 26 items were revised and one new item added. After round two, all items received a CVI above 0.78. The final tool consisted of 93 items across 15 elements of practice. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were between 0.92 and 0.98 indicating good reliability. Mann–Whitney U tests demonstrated significant differences between clinical nurses and advanced practice nurses across 13 out of 15 elements of practice.
The CaN-SAT is a comprehensive, valid and reliable tool that can be used for cancer nurses to self-assess current skill levels, identify their learning needs and inform decisions about educational opportunities to optimise cancer care provision.
The research team included three patient advocates from Cancer Voices NSW, who were actively involved in all aspects of the study and are listed as authors.
Limited literature has focused on people with cancers' preference for care providers in scenarios where trade-offs may have to be made.
To report the results of a comprehensive search and synthesis of discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling studies (± willingness to pay estimates) in scenarios involving cancer nurses, with a focus on: (1) preferred care provider; and (2) relative importance of attributes of care provision for people with cancer.
A search was conducted across: CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar for discrete choice experiments published between January and July 2025. Data were extracted and appraised by two authors. Results were narratively synthesised.
Of 461 studies screened, 11 were included, published in Australia (n = 3), UK (n = 3), and China (n = 5) including people with breast (n = 4), gastric (n = 4), prostate (n = 1), or mixed cancers (n = 2). In six studies exploring scenarios of follow-up care (i.e., survivorship/surveillance), cancer medical specialists were the preferred care provider, followed by cancer nurses, and then general practitioners. In four of the five studies of supportive care scenarios (i.e., diet and exercise advice, anxiety and depression screening), cancer nurses were the preferred care provider, followed by allied health professionals, then cancer medical specialists. The highest WTP estimate was $US226.15 for a medical specialist to provide follow-up care. For supportive care, the highest WTP was $US137.52 for a cancer nurse to provide diet-based lifestyle advice post-treatment for breast cancer.
Cancer nurses are highly valued by people with cancer, particularly for supportive care provision. Opportunities exist for an increase in cancer nurse specialists with expanded scope of practice, to support the preference of people with cancer to have cancer medical specialists, or cancer nurse specialists provide expert cancer follow-up care.
Employees of a cancer patient advocacy group were involved in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, and the preparation of the manuscript. No patients were involved in this work. However, this systematic review prioritized patient voices by including studies that reported on the preferences of people with cancer.
FreshRSS 