IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i19-20p3847-3859.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Involving patients and nurses in choosing between two validated questionnaires to identify chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy before implementing in clinical practice—A qualitative study

Author

Listed:
  • Marlene Æ. Jensen
  • Mette N. Yilmaz
  • Birgith Pedersen

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore from a nurse and patient perspective what questionnaire—“Functional assessment of cancer treatment gynecological group neurotoxicity” or “Oxaliplatin‐Associated Neuropathy Questionnaire”—best describes chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy and its influence on everyday life in a comprehensive and meaningful way, prior to implementation in daily practice. Background Patients experience chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy during and after chemotherapy for colorectal cancer with oxaliplatin. This neuropathy is difficult to describe for patients and to identify for nurses. To address the specific needs of patients and improve identification of neuropathy and its influence on everyday life, we wanted to implement a questionnaire in clinical practice. Design A phenomenological hermeneutic frame of reference was used. Method Semi‐structured interviews with 15 patients and two focus groups with eight cancer nurses were used for data collection. Data were organised and interpreted by content analytical steps in a hermeneutical process. COREQ checklist was used in reporting of the study. Results The analysis resulted in two main themes (a) “To dig deeper” with sub‐themes “to identify the line between acceptable and nonacceptable chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy,” and “searching for a precise description.” (b). “When everything is interrelated” with sub‐themes “to be aware of different perspectives and understandings” and “recognise potential pitfalls.” Conclusion Involving patients and nurses in choosing between the two questionnaires revealed that neither alone was sufficient to describe the patients’ experiences. Instead, it seems essential to implement both questionnaires, using the answers as a basis for a dialogue to address the patients’ specific needs. Relevance for clinical practice Using patients and nurses perspectives in a complementary way may provide a solid foundation before starting an implementation process in clinical practice. However, attention must be paid to potential barriers and facilitators as well as the fact that a successful implementing process requires leadership and information sharing.

Suggested Citation

  • Marlene Æ. Jensen & Mette N. Yilmaz & Birgith Pedersen, 2020. "Involving patients and nurses in choosing between two validated questionnaires to identify chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy before implementing in clinical practice—A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3847-3859, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:19-20:p:3847-3859
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15417
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15417?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. Rebecca Feo & Alison Kitson & Tiffany Conroy, 2018. "How fundamental aspects of nursing care are defined in the literature: A scoping review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2189-2229, June.
    2. Petra Boelens & Claire Taylor & Geoffrey Henning & Perla Marang-van de Mheen & Eloy Espin & Theo Wiggers & Jola Gore-Booth & Barbara Moss & Vincenzo Valentini & Cornelis Velde, 2014. "Involving Patients in a Multidisciplinary European Consensus Process and in the Development of a ‘Patient Summary of the Consensus Document for Colon and Rectal Cancer Care’," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 261-270, September.
    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. Sean Grant & Glen S. Hazlewood & Holly L. Peay & Ann Lucas & Ian Coulter & Arlene Fink & Dmitry Khodyakov, 2018. "Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 155-166, April.
    2. Annamaria Bagnasco & Milko Zanini & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Fiona Timmins & Miss Carolina Galanti & Giuseppe Aleo & Gianluca Catania & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Dignity, privacy, respect and choice—A scoping review of measurement of these concepts within acute healthcare practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1832-1857, June.
    3. Alexandra Mudd & Rebecca Feo & Tiffany Conroy & Alison Kitson, 2020. "Where and how does fundamental care fit within seminal nursing theories: A narrative review and synthesis of key nursing concepts," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3652-3666, October.
    4. Anett Skorpen Tarberg & Bodil J. Landstad & Torstein Hole & Morten Thronæs & Marit Kvangarsnes, 2020. "Nurses’ experiences of compassionate care in the palliative pathway," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4818-4826, December.
    5. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Matteo Danielis, 2021. "To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-265, January.
    6. Annamaria Bagnasco & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Carolina Galanti & Gloria Varone & Gianluca Catania & Milko Zanini & Giuseppe Aleo & Roger Watson & Mark Hayter & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Unmet nursing care needs on medical and surgical wards: A scoping review of patients’ perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3-4), pages 347-369, February.
    7. Alvisa Palese & Lucia Cadorin & Marco Testa & Tommaso Geri & Luana Colloca & Giacomo Rossettini, 2019. "Contextual factors triggering placebo and nocebo effects in nursing practice: Findings from a national cross‐sectional study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1966-1978, May.
    8. Alison Kitson, 2018. "Moving on…," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2175-2176, June.
    9. Helle Vendel Petersen & Signe Foged & Vibeke Nørholm, 2019. "“It is two worlds” cross‐sectoral nurse collaboration related to care transitions: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1999-2008, May.
    10. Hanna‐Maria Matinolli & Riitta Mieronkoski & Sanna Salanterä, 2020. "Health and medical device development for fundamental care: Scoping review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1822-1831, 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:19-20:p:3847-3859. 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.