Study population | Sample size | Data collection tool | Analysis results and Indicators collected |
---|---|---|---|
Qualitative study (18 months) | |||
Target cancer coordination nurses | 10 nurses observations (3 days per nurse, per centre) | Structured on-site observations: quiet observation of daily work, during 3 days with an Ad hoc observation guide | Relevant components of reference operational framework of cancer care coordination interventions for the French health care system: - Structure of the coordination intervention (organisational rules, human, financial, material, perceived resources, representations, beliefs) - Actors of coordination (role, competences …) - Process of care coordination and propositions of results - Environment, contexts of coordination |
Target cancer coordination nurses | 1 (1 day for the 10 nurses) | “Mono-professionals” target nurses focus group | |
A cancer coordination nurse, a medical oncologist, a general practitioner, a home nurse, a patient and his caregiver | 1 (1 day in 1 centre) | “Multi-stakeholders” focus group | |
Cancer coordination nurses | 38 (target cancer coordination nurses [n = 10] and all the others selected by the investigation centres [n = 28]) | All providers’ semi-structured interviews | |
Referral professionals to cancer coordination nurses | 200 (20 professionals selected by the 10 target cancer coordination nurses) | ||
Patients | 50 (5 patients selected by the 10 target cancer coordination nurses) | ||
Patients’ caregivers | 50 (1 caregiver per patient) | ||
Quantitative analysis ad hoc survey (18 months) | |||
All cancer coordination nurses | 38 (target and non-target cancer coordination nurses) | Self-administered questionnaires | Socio-demographic data, perceptions of organisational conditions |
Eisenberger Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS) score | Perception that organisation contributes to their work well-being by an adequate organisational support | ||
Rizzo’s questionnaire | Role perceptions (measures of role conflict and ambiguity) | ||
The workplace commitment Allen and Meyer’s scale | Measures of affective commitment, normative commitment, and continuance commitment | ||
Referral professionals to cancer coordination nurses | 380 (10 professionals per cancer coordination nurses) | Ad hoc self-administrated questionnaire | Satisfaction with coordination of care |
Patients | 190 (5 patients per cancer coordination nurses) | Ad hoc self-administrated questionnaire | Satisfaction with coordination of care |
EPICES Social precariousness score | Measure of deprivation | ||
Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30 | Score of overall health status and quality of life; score reflecting levels of function domains and levels of symptom burden | ||
Patients‘caregivers | 190 (1 caregiver per patient) | Ad hoc self-administrated questionnaire | Satisfaction with coordination of care |
Zarit burden inventory | Measure subjective caregiver burden (estimating the total hours per week spent doing things for patients and how many hours caregivers missed paid work in the prior month due to caregiving responsibilities) |