Background Adolescent and young adult patients with cancer (AYAs) identify sexual and reproductive health (SRH) as an important but often neglected aspect of their comprehensive cancer care. The purpose of this study was to explore AYA perceptions and experiences of SRH communication with oncology clinicians. Methods Twenty‐three AYA patients and survivors ages 15‐25 years from a large academic oncology center participated in semistructured qualitative interviews investigating their experiences discussing SRH issues, including specific topics discussed, conversation barriers and facilitators, suggestions for clinicians on how to improve conversations, and education and resource needs. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using a thematic analysis approach. Results Interviews with AYAs revealed two primary themes—a need for oncology clinicians to discuss SRH and critical gaps in current SRH communication practices. AYAs reported a need for improved SRH communication for the purposes of general education, addressing specific SRH issues experienced, and understanding the long‐term impact of cancer and treatment on SRH. The current communication gaps are exacerbated by patient discomfort initiating conversations and the presence of family members. AYAs shared six key recommendations for clinicians on how to improve SRH communication. Conclusions AYAs identify a role for oncology clinicians in discussing SRH as a primary aspect of comprehensive health care during cancer treatment and in survivorship; however, multiple gaps and barriers interfere with such discussions. Future efforts must focus on clinician education and training in SRH as well as education and intervention opportunities for AYAs to optimize the care provided.
The WISH Assessment holds promise as a tool that may inform organizational priority setting and guide research around causal pathways influencing implementation and outcomes related to these approaches.
Qualitative methods are critical for implementation science as they generate opportunities to examine complexity and include a diversity of perspectives. However, it can be a challenge to identify the approach that will provide the best fit for achieving a given set of practice-driven research needs. After all, implementation scientists must find a balance between speed and rigor, reliance on existing frameworks and new discoveries, and inclusion of insider and outsider perspectives. This paper offers guidance on taking a pragmatic approach to analysis, which entails strategically combining and borrowing from established qualitative approaches to meet a study’s needs, typically with guidance from an existing framework and with explicit research and practice change goals.Section 1 offers a series of practical questions to guide the development of a pragmatic analytic approach. These include examining the balance of inductive and deductive procedures, the extent to which insider or outsider perspectives are privileged, study requirements related to data and products that support scientific advancement and practice change, and strategic resource allocation. This is followed by an introduction to three approaches commonly considered for implementation science projects: grounded theory, framework analysis, and interpretive phenomenological analysis, highlighting core analytic procedures that may be borrowed for a pragmatic approach. Section 2 addresses opportunities to ensure and communicate rigor of pragmatic analytic approaches. Section 3 provides an illustrative example from the team’s work, highlighting how a pragmatic analytic approach was designed and executed and the diversity of research and practice products generated.As qualitative inquiry gains prominence in implementation science, it is critical to take advantage of qualitative methods’ diversity and flexibility. This paper furthers the conversation regarding how to strategically mix and match components of established qualitative approaches to meet the analytic needs of implementation science projects, thereby supporting high-impact research and improved opportunities to create practice change.
Objective: Food-service workers' health and wellbeing is impacted by their jobs and work environments.Formative research methods were used to explore working conditions impacting workers' health to inform intervention planning and implementation and to enhance the intervention's 'fit' to the organization.Methods: Four qualitative methods (worker focus groups; manager interviews; worksite observations; multi-stakeholder workshop) explored in-depth and then prioritized working conditions impacting workers' health as targets for an intervention. Results: Prioritized working conditions included: ergonomics; work intensity; career development and job enrichment. Data revealed necessary intervention mechanisms to enhance intervention implementation: worker and management communication infrastructure; employee participation in intervention planning and implementation; tailored worksite strategies; and ensuring leadership commitment.Conclusions: These targeted, comprehensive methods move away from a typical focus on generic working conditions, e.g. job demands and physical work environment, to explore those conditions unique to an organization. Thereby, enhancing 'intervention-fit' at multiple levels within the company context.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.