- •Many countries around the world have explored their national-level research priorities of cancer nurses to identify areas where new knowledge is required to advance cancer care.
- •This information is useful for both improving outcomes for patients and health services, as well as informing research funders.
- •This study is the first consensus study to identify research priorities of cancer nurses across all of Australia
- •Research priorities can be used to inform research funding to advance areas where new knowledge is required and to align initiatives, service planning and resources.
Abstract
Background
Aim
Methods
Findings
Discussion and Conclusion
Keywords
1. Introduction
- Chang E.
- Daly J.
2. Methods
2.1 Study design

2.2 Data collection and participants
2.2.1 Stage 1: First survey
2.2.2 Stage 2: Refining topics and defining themes
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
2.2.3 Stage 3: Second survey
2.2.4 Stage 4: Ranking research topics
2.2.5 Stage 5: Third survey
2.3 Ethical considerations
3. Results
3.1 Participants
Variable | First survey | Second survey | Third survey | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(N = 255) | (N = 86) | (N = 10) | ||||
n | % | n | % | N | % | |
Female | 220 | 89.8 | 85 | 98.8 | 10 | 100 |
Age | ||||||
18-29 years | 4 | 1.6 | 3 | 3.5 | - | |
30-39 years | 53 | 21.5 | 17 | 19.8 | 2 | 20 |
40-49 years | 53 | 21.5 | 22 | 25.6 | 3 | 30 |
50-59 years | 99 | 40.1 | 28 | 32.6 | 5 | 50 |
60 years or older | 38 | 15.4 | 16 | 18.6 | – | |
Work location | ||||||
Metropolitan | 168 | 68.3 | 69 | 80.2 | 8 | 80 |
Regional | 54 | 22 | 15 | 17.4 | 2 | 20 |
Rural/remote | 24 | 9.8 | 2 | 2.3 | ||
Highest qualification | ||||||
Hospital certificate | 6 | 2.5 | - | - | - | - |
Post registration certificate/diploma | 27 | 11.2 | 15 | 18.3 | 1 | 10 |
Bachelor's degree | 34 | 14.1 | 15 | 18.3 | 4 | 40 |
Postgraduate certificate/diploma | 78 | 32.2 | 22 | 26.8 | 5 | 50 |
Masters | 78 | 32.2 | 24 | 29.3 | - | - |
PhD | 19 | 7.9 | 6 | 7.3 | - | - |
Workplace | ||||||
Public | 165 | 68.8 | 53 | 63.1 | 7 | 70 |
Private | 51 | 21.3 | 21 | 25 | 2 | 20 |
Not for profit | 24 | 10 | 10 | 11.9 | 1 | 10 |
Employment status | ||||||
Full time | 129 | 54.4 | 49 | 59.8 | 5 | 50 |
Part time | 101 | 42.6 | 32 | 39 | 5 | 50 |
Casual | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1.3 | - | - |
Years of cancer nursing experience | ||||||
Less than 10 years | 38 | 15.8 | 24 | 28.6 | 1 | 10 |
10-20 years | 117 | 48.6 | 28 | 33.3 | 3 | 30 |
More than 20 years | 86 | 35.7 | 32 | 38.1 | 6 | 60 |
Primary role | ||||||
Patient care | 99 | 40.7 | 40 | 47.6 | 6 | 60 |
Management | 34 | 14 | 8 | 9.5 | 1 | 10 |
Education/Coordination | 60 | 24.7 | 18 | 21.4 | 1 | 10 |
Research/Academia | 26 | 10.7 | 8 | 9.5 | 1 | 10 |
Other | 24 | 9.9 | 10 | 11.9 | 1 | 10 |
Participated in previous round | ||||||
- | - | 17 | 20 | 10 | 100 |
3.2 Stage 1 and 2: First survey
Domain | Priority rank by countSurvey 1N = 255 | Priority rank by scoreSurvey 2N = 86 | Priority rank by consensusSurvey 3N = 10 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient experiences and outcomes | Count of topic nominated | Rank | Mean score | rank | % agree | rank | |
Patient experience | 28 | 6 | 8.6 | 1 | 80% | 1 | |
Side effects and symptoms | 78 | 1 | 8.5 | =2 | 2 | ||
Clinical care interventions | 52 | 2 | 8.5 | =2 | 3 | ||
Patient education | 42 | 3 | 8.4 | 4 | 4 | ||
Cancer treatment outcomes | 29 | 5 | 7.0 | 5 | 5 | ||
Cancer survivorship | 38 | 4 | 6.8 | 6 | |||
Decision making | 28 | 7 | 6.4 | 7 | |||
Complications of care | 20 | 9 | 6.3 | =8 | |||
Populations at risk of poorer outcomes | 24 | 8 | 6.3 | =8 | |||
Caregiver support | 20 | 10 | 5.6 | 10 | |||
Cancer prevention | 15 | 11 | 5.4 | 11 | |||
Complementary/Alternative medicines | 14 | 12 | 3.8 | 12 | |||
Side effects and symptoms (sub domain) | |||||||
Quality of Life | 9 | 4 | 5.4 | 1 | 70% | 1 | |
Psychosocial | 26 | 1 | 4.8 | 2 | 2 | ||
Patient reported outcomes (in general) | 31 | 3 | 4.3 | 3 | 3 | ||
Pain | 6 | 6 | 3.8 | 4 | 4 | ||
Financial toxicity | 13 | 2 | 3.3 | 5 | 5 | ||
Fatigue | 6 | 7 | 3.3 | 6 | |||
Peripheral neuropathy | 7 | 5 | 3.1 | 7 | |||
Health services research | |||||||
Access to health services | 78 | 3 | 7.6 | 1 | 80% | 1 | |
Integrated care | 53 | 2 | 7.0 | =2 | 2 | ||
Nurse led health services | 16 | 7 | 7.0 | =2 | 3 | ||
Models of care | 91 | 1 | 6.4 | 4 | 4 | ||
Palliative care | 34 | 4 | 5.9 | 5 | 5 | ||
Rural and remote health services | 32 | 5 | 5.8 | 6 | |||
Primary care health services | 17 | 6 | 4.7 | 7 | |||
Implementation research | 12 | 8 | 4.2 | =8 | |||
Referrals | 12 | 9 | 4.2 | =8 | |||
Exercise education and intervention | 7 | 10 | 4.0 | 10 | |||
Nursing workforce | |||||||
Well-being and burnout | 31 | 3 | 5.3 | 1 | 80% | 1 | |
Currency of practice/education | 52 | 1 | 5.1 | =2 | 2 | ||
Scope of practice | 16 | 6 | 5.1 | =2 | 3 | ||
Professional recognition | 23 | 4 | 4.8 | 4 | 4 | ||
Safety and quality | 21 | 5 | 4.8 | 5 | 5 | ||
Subspecialisation | 45 | 2 | 4.3 | 6 | |||
Valuing nursing research | 12 | 7 | 3.9 | =7 | |||
Informing policy | 7 | 8 | 3.9 | =7 |
3.2.1 Stage 3 and 4 second survey
3.2.2 Stage 5: Third survey

4. Discussion
4.1 Patient-related outcomes and experiences, symptoms and side effects
4.2 Health services research
4.3 Nursing workforce
4.4 Strengths and limitations
5. Conclusion
Authorship contribution statement
Funding
Ethical statement
Conflict of interest
Acknowledgements
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- Improving management of fever in neutropenic children with cancer across multiple sites.European Journal of Cancer Care. 2021; 30e13413
- Cancer data in Australia. 2020; (Available from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-data-in-australia, accessed 1 July 2021.)
- Priorities for Adult Cancer Nursing Research: A West Australian Replication.Cancer Nursing. 2001; 24: 88-98https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-200104000-00003
- Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016; 34: 557
- Cancer Costs Australia. 2018; (Retrieved 10.6.21 from)
- Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of lung cancer: a systematic review.Lung Cancer. 2017; 113: 140-151
- Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability.Rural and remote health. 2016; 16: 245
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019). Australian Burden of Disease Study: impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2015. Available from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-disease-study-illness-death-2015.(accessed 1 July 2021)
- Priorities for cancer research from the viewpoints of cancer nurses and cancer patients: a mixed-method systematic review.Cancer Nursing. 2020; 43: 238-256
- Recognizing European cancer nursing: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence of effectiveness and value of cancer nursing.Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2017; 73: 3144-3153
- Cancer Australia website.https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/. 2021;
- CNSA website. 2021; (Available from)https://www.cnsa.org.au/Date accessed: July 1, 2021
- Clinical research priorities in oncology nursing: An Australian perspective.International Journal of Nursing Practice. 1996; 2: 21-28https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.1996.tb00017.x
- Establishing priorities for oncology nursing research: nurse and patient collaboration.Oncology nursing forum. 2017; 1: 192-203
- Burnout in nursing: a theoretical review.Human resources for health. 2020; 18: 1-17
- The advanced practice nurse (APN) in oncology: an opportunity to meet the fast evolving needs in cancer care.Belg J Med Oncol. 2020; 14: 93-99
- Finding a way with words: Delphi study to develop a discussion prompt list for paediatric palliative care.Palliative medicine. 2020; 34: 291-299
- Telehealth in radiation oncology at the Townsville Cancer Centre: Service evaluation and patient satisfaction.Clinical and translational radiation oncology. 2019; 15: 20-25
- The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners.Journal of biomedical informatics. 2019; 95103208
- Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research.Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011; 78: 1695-1704
- The 2014-2018 oncology nursing society research agenda.Oncology nursing forum. 2015; 42: 450-465
- Defining expertise in cancer nursing practice.Cancer Nursing. 2021; 44: 314-322
- Priorities for oncology nursing research: the 2013 national survey.Oncology nursing forum. 2014; 41: 67-76
- Translational research and symptom management in oncology nursing.British Journal of Nursing. 2016; 25: S12-S21https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2016.25.10.S12
- Cancer Nursing Research Output in Africa 2005 to 2014: an integrative review.Cancer Nursing. 2017; 40: E36-E44https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000334
- Methodology update: Delphi studies.Nursing research. 2018; 67: 404-410
- Developing a research agenda for nursing and midwifery: a modified Delphi study.Contemporary Nurse: Education. 2015; 51: 83-95https://doi.org/10.1080/10376178.2015.1116372
- Lifestyle interventions are feasible in patients with colorectal cancer with potential short-term health benefits: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease. 2017; 32: 765-775
- Exercise recommendations for the management of symptoms clusters resulting from cancer and cancer treatments.Seminars in oncology nursing. 2016; 32: 383-393
- What is cancer nursing research?.Cancer Nursing. 2015; 38: 81-82https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000228
- Improving survey response rates in online panels: Effects of low-cost incentives and cost-free text appeal interventions.Social Science Computer Review. 2016; 34: 229-243
- NVivo qualitative data analysis software.QSR International Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia2020 (Release 1.0)
- Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: a literature review.International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2021; 123104058
- Grappling with the ‘human'problem hiding behind the technology: Telehealth during and beyond COVID-19.Psycho-oncology. 2020;
- Global perspectives on cancer health disparities: impact, utility, and implications for cancer nursing.Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2016; 3: 316-323https://doi.org/10.4103/2347-5625.195885
- Research agenda of the Oncology Nursing Society: 2019-2022.Oncology nursing forum. 2019; 46: 654-669
- Cancer nursing research in queensland, australia: barriers, priorities, and strategies for progress.Cancer Nursing. 2002; 25: 167-180https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-200206000-00001
- Cancer nursing’s potential to reduce the growing burden of cancer across the world.Oncology nursing forum. 2020; 47: 625-627
- Essential oncology nursing care along the cancer continuum.The lancet oncology. 2020; 21: e555-e563