IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i1-2p265-273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prostate cancer survivorship priorities for men and their partners: Delphi consensus from a nurse specialist cohort

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Ralph
  • Anna Green
  • Sally Sara
  • Suzanne McDonald
  • Philip Norris
  • Victoria Terry
  • Jeffrey C. Dunn
  • Suzanne K. Chambers

Abstract

Aims & objectives To describe the prostate cancer survivorship experience and priorities from the perspective of prostate cancer specialist nurses. Background Specialist nurses are providing long‐term survivorship care to men and their partners however, few prostate cancer survivorship interventions are effective and priorities for nurse‐led survivorship care are poorly understood. Design A three‐round modified Delphi approach. Methods The study was conducted between 1 December 2018 and 28 February 2019 to develop a consensus view from an expert nurse cohort (43 prostate cancer specialist nurses: 90% response). First, participants described men's prostate cancer survivorship experience and priorities for improving care for men and partners. In subsequent rounds, participants identified key descriptors of the survivorship experience; rated priorities for importance and feasibility; and identified a top priority action for men and for partners. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were applied. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies informed the conduct of the study. Results Prostate cancer specialist nurses characterised the prostate cancer survivorship experience of men as under‐resourced, disjointed and distressing. In all, 11 survivorship priorities for men and three for partners were identified within five broad areas: capacity building; care coordination; physical and psychosocial care; community awareness and early detection; and palliative care. However, feasibility for individual items was frequently described as low. Conclusion Internationally, prostate cancer survivorship care for men and their partners requires urgent action to meet future need and address gaps in capacity and care coordination. Low feasibility of survivorship priorities may reflect translational challenges related to capacity. Prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines connected to practice priorities are urgently needed. Relevance to clinical practice These findings address key gaps in the evidence for developing national nurse‐led prostate cancer survivorship priorities. These priorities can be used to inform survivorship guidelines including nursing care for men with prostate cancer and their partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Ralph & Anna Green & Sally Sara & Suzanne McDonald & Philip Norris & Victoria Terry & Jeffrey C. Dunn & Suzanne K. Chambers, 2020. "Prostate cancer survivorship priorities for men and their partners: Delphi consensus from a nurse specialist cohort," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1-2), pages 265-273, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:1-2:p:265-273
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15096
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15096?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2012. "Consensus measurement in Delphi studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(8), pages 1525-1536.
    2. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bokrantz, Jon & Skoogh, Anders & Berlin, Cecilia & Stahre, Johan, 2017. "Maintenance in digitalised manufacturing: Delphi-based scenarios for 2030," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 154-169.
    2. Prianto Budi Saptono & Gustofan Mahmud & Intan Pratiwi & Dwi Purwanto & Ismail Khozen & Muhamad Akbar Aditama & Siti Khodijah & Maria Eurelia Wayan & Rina Yuliastuty Asmara & Ferry Jie, 2023. "Development of Climate-Related Disclosure Indicators for Application in Indonesia: A Delphi Method Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    3. Petreski Marjan & Petreski Blagica & Tumanoska Despina & Narazani Edlira & Kazazi Fatush & Ognjanov Galjina & Jankovic Irena & Mustafa Arben & Kochovska Tereza, 2017. "The Size and Effects of Emigration and Remittances in the Western Balkans. A Forecasting Based on a Delphi Process," Südosteuropa. Journal of Politics and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 65(4), pages 679-695, December.
    4. Nibedita Mukherjee & Jean Huge & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam, 2014. "Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/217963, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Di Zio, Simone & Bolzan, Mario & Marozzi, Marco, 2021. "Classification of Delphi outputs through robust ranking and fuzzy clustering for Delphi-based scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    6. Alyami, Saleh. H. & Rezgui, Yacine & Kwan, Alan, 2013. "Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 43-54.
    7. Christoph Markmann & Alexander Spickermann & Heiko A. von der Gracht & Alexander Brem, 2021. "Improving the question formulation in Delphi‐like surveys: Analysis of the effects of abstract language and amount of information on response behavior," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
    8. Antonelli, Marta & Basile, Linda & Gagliardi, Francesca & Isernia, Pierangelo, 2022. "The future of the Mediterranean agri-food systems: Trends and perspectives from a Delphi survey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Johannes I. F. Henning & Henry Jordaan, 2016. "Determinants of Financial Sustainability for Farm Credit Applications—A Delphi Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Kimberly Pugel & Amy Javernick-Will & Matthew Koschmann & Shawn Peabody & Karl Linden, 2020. "Adapting Collaborative Approaches for Service Provision to Low-Income Countries: Expert Panel Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Volkmar, Gioia & Fischer, Peter M. & Reinecke, Sven, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Exploring drivers, barriers, and future developments in marketing management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 599-614.
    12. Kawamoto, Carlos Tadao & Wright, James Terence Coulter & Spers, Renata Giovinazzo & de Carvalho, Daniel Estima, 2019. "Can we make use of perception of questions' easiness in Delphi-like studies? Some results from an experiment with an alternative feedback," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 296-305.
    13. Meijering, Jurian Vincent & Tobi, Hilde, 2018. "The effects of feeding back experts’ own initial ratings in Delphi studies: A randomized trial," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 216-224.
    14. Aldossary, Naief A. & Rezgui, Yacine & Kwan, Alan, 2015. "Consensus-based low carbon domestic design framework for sustainable homes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 417-432.
    15. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.
    16. Förster, Bernadette & von der Gracht, Heiko, 2014. "Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight — A comparison of panels based on company-internal and external participants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 215-229.
    17. Fritschy, Carolin & Spinler, Stefan, 2019. "The impact of autonomous trucks on business models in the automotive and logistics industry–a Delphi-based scenario study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    18. Förster, Bernadette, 2015. "Technology foresight for sustainable production in the German automotive supplier industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 237-248.
    19. Petreski Marjan & Petreski Blagica & Tumanoska Despina & Narazani Edlira & Kazazi Fatush & Ognjanov Galjina & Jankovic Irena & Mustafa Arben & Kochovska Tereza, 2017. "The Size and Effects of Emigration and Remittances in the Western Balkans. A Forecasting Based on a Delphi Process," Comparative Southeast European Studies, De Gruyter, vol. 65(4), pages 679-695, December.
    20. Soumi Muhuri & Sanghamitra Basu, 2018. "Developing Residential Social Cohesion Index for High-Rise Group Housing Complexes in India," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 923-947, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:1-2:p:265-273. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.