Background Research has demonstrated that communication and care coordination improve cancer patient outcomes. To improve communication and care coordination, it is important to understand Primary Care Providers’ (PCPs’) perceptions of communication with oncologists as well as PCPs’ communication needs. Methods A mixed methods approach was utilized in the present study. In the qualitative phase of the study, 18 PCPs practicing in underserved, minority communities were interviewed about their experiences communicating with oncologists. In the quantitative phase of the study, 128 PCPs completed an online survey about their preferences, experiences, and satisfaction with communication with oncologists. Results Results indicated a PCP-oncologist gap in communication occurred between diagnosis and treatment. PCPs wanted more communication with oncologists, updates on their patients’ prognosis throughout treatment, to be contacted via telephone or email, and saw their role as crucial in providing supportive care for their patients. Conclusions Although PCPs recognize that they play a critical, pro-active role in supporting patients throughout the continuum of their cancer care experience, existing norms regarding post-referral engagement and oncologist-PCP communication often hinder activation of this role among PCPs. Expected standards regarding the method, frequency, and quality of post-referral communication should be jointly articulated and made accountable between PCPs and oncologists to help improve cancer patients’ quality of care, particularly in minority communities.

How do public administrators find information about the problems they confront at work? In particular, how and when do they reach across organizational boundaries to find answers? There are substantial potential obstacles to such searches for answers, especially in a system of decentralized governance such as the U.S. government. In this article, we examine the alternative mechanisms within the public sector that compensate for this dispersion of expertise, focusing on knowledge sharing across public DNA forensics laboratories. In particular, we propose that the emergence of informal interpersonal networks plays an important role in providing access to necessary expertise within a highly decentralized system. Our findings point both to the need for further research on knowledge sharing networks within the public sector as well as practical implications around the value of investments into facilitating the creation and maintenance of networks of practice.

Knowledge is essential for the functioning of every social system, especially for professionals in knowledge-intensive organisations. Since individuals do not possess all the work-related knowledge that they require, they turn to others in search for that knowledge. While prior research has mainly focused on antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing and understanding why people do not share knowledge, less is known why people provide knowledge, and what conditions trigger voluntary engagement in knowledge sharing. Our article addresses this gap by proposing a multi-level framework for voluntary engagement in knowledge sharing: individual, relational, group, and informational. We provide illustrations from a particular knowledge-intensive community, DNA forensic scientists who work at public laboratories.

Primary Care Providers (PCPs) can be instrumental in helping to prepare patients for referral to cancer treatment. It has been suggested that PCPs can have an important impact on priming patients about the possibility of receiving care within a cancer treatment clinical trial (CCT). However, little is understood about how to effectively engage primary care providers in educating patients about trials. Data were collected as part of two qualitative research projects about primary care providers’ role in referral to treatment and to CCTs. Participants were 27 PCPs who agreed to take part in qualitative face-to-face or telephone interviews and serve predominantly underserved, minority populations. Interviews identified a number of factors influencing referral to oncologists, including patients’ insurance coverage, location and proximity to treatment facilities, and the strength of ongoing relationships with and/or previous experience with a specialist. PCPs overwhelmingly expressed disinterest in discussing any treatment options, including CCTs. Misconceptions about quality of care received through trials were also common, presenting a deterrent to discussion. PCPs need targeted, evidence-based educational interventions to appropriately address their concerns about cancer clinical trials, enhance provider communication skills, and alter patient referral behavior. Steps must also be taken to strengthen communication between oncologists and referring PCPs.

Background/Aims Cancer clinical trials give patients access to state-of-the art treatments and facilitate the translation of findings into mainstream clinical care. However, patients from racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Primary care physicians are a trusted source of information for patients, yet their role in decision-making about cancer treatment and referrals to trial participation has received little attention. The aim of this study was to determine physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer clinical trials, their experience with trials, and their interest in appropriate training about trials. Methods 613 physicians in the New York City area primarily serving patients from ethnic and racial minority groups were invited via email to participate in a 20-minute online survey. Physicians were asked about their patient population, trial knowledge and attitudes, interest in training, and personal demographics. Using calculated scale variables, we used descriptive statistical analyses to better understand physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about trials. Results 127 physicians completed the survey. Overall, they had low knowledge about and little experience with trials. However, they generally had positive attitudes toward trials, with 41.4% indicating a strong interest in learning more about their role in trials, and 35.7% indicating that they might be interested. Results suggest that Black and Latino physicians and those with more positive attitudes and beliefs were more likely to be interested in future training opportunities. Conclusions Primary care physicians may be an important group to target in trying to improve cancer clinical trial participation among minority patients. Future work should explore methods of educational intervention for such interested providers.