An Action Plan for Translating Cancer Survivorship Research Into Care

Abstract

To meet the complex needs of a growing number of cancer survivors, it is essential to accelerate the translation of survivorship research into evidence-based interventions and, as appropriate, recommendations for care that may be implemented in a wide variety of settings. Current progress in translating research into care is stymied, with results of many studies un- or underutilized. To better understand this problem and identify strategies to encourage the translation of survivorship research findings into practice, four agencies (American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, LIVE STRONG: Foundation, National Cancer Institute) hosted a meeting in June, 2012, titled: "Biennial Cancer Survivorship Research Conference: Translating Science to Care." Meeting participants concluded that accelerating science into care will require a coordinated, collaborative effort by individuals from diverse settings, including researchers and clinicians, survivors and families, public health professionals, and policy makers. This commentary describes an approach stemming from that meeting to facilitate translating research into care by changing the process of conducting research-improving communication, collaboration, evaluation, and feedback through true and ongoing partnerships. We apply the T0-T4 translational process model to survivorship research and provide illustrations of its use. The resultant framework is intended to orient stakeholders to the role of their work in the translational process and facilitate the transdisciplinary collaboration needed to translate basic discoveries into best practices regarding clinical care, self-care/management, and community programs for cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss barriers to implementing translational survivorship science identified at the meeting, along with future directions to accelerate this process.

Toward a Broader Role for Occupational Therapy in Supportive Oncology Care

“…Numerous rehabilitation professionals may contribute throughout the continuum of care, including occupational therapy, physical therapy, nursing, and social work, among others. It is therefore unsurprising that barriers to full, functionoriented occupational therapy involvement in oncology can arise within the team dynamic, including weak interfaces between disciplines (Silver & Gilchrist, 2011); discipline-specific terminology, methods, and measures (Alfano et al, 2014); and concerns about violating scope of practice (Dilworth et al, 2014). Some function-related supportive care services may fall within the scope of practice of more than one discipline, and disputed responsibility has also been cited as a barrier to provision of supportive care (Dilworth et al, 2014).…”

Assessment of rehabilitation needs in colorectal cancer treatment: Results from a mixed audit and qualitative study in Denmark

“…The national policies on identification of rehabilitation needs can be promoted by being integrated into existing practice and thus do not pose a challenge to the well established and evidence-based nature of the fast-track concept, Implementation of the policies is more challenging when these are to be incorporated into clinical practice with less well established structures and when evidence of the relevance and effect of the recommendations is less obvious. Special organizational measures are required to further the implementation of the different facets of rehabilitation needs, such as communication, documentation of evidence and structural changes at practice level [18,19].…”

Accelerating Progress in Eating Disorders Prevention: A Call for Policy Translation Research and Training

“…For well over a decade, translation-which in the simplest terms can be described as systematic and deliberate processes using research findings to inform changes in policy and practice to improve population health-has become increasingly central to the missions of health sciences and of major government and foundation funders of health research (Alfano et al, 2014;Lomas, 2000;McGinnis, Williams-Russo, & Knickman, 2002;Rubio et al, 2010;Sung et al, 2003;Zerhouni, 2005). Subsequent to the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Clinical Research Roundtable's 2003 publication on translational research, which described translational research in two phases (T1 and T2) (Sung et al, 2003), scholars have expanded on the phases to include T3 and T4 to delineate types of translation occurring in the public health and policy sectors with the potential to improve population health on a large scale (Alfano et al, 2014;Khoury et al, 2007).…”