Oncology Nursing Society year 2004 research priorities survey

被引:66
作者
Berger, AM
Berry, DL
Christopher, KA
Greene, AL
Maliski, S
Swenson, KK
Mallory, G
Hoyt, DR
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska, Med Ctr, Coll Nursing, Omaha, NE 68182 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[3] Univ Massachusetts, Coll Nursing, N Dartmouth, MA USA
[4] NOVA Res Co, Bethesda, MD USA
[5] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Nursing, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[6] Pk Nicollet Inst, Minneapolis, MN USA
[7] Oncol Nursing Soc, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[8] Univ Nebraska, Bur Sociol Res, Lincoln, NE USA
关键词
D O I
10.1188/05.ONF.281-290
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose/Objectives: To determine the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) research priorities for 2005-2008 for oncology nursing across the entire scope of cancer care, including prevention, detection, treatment, survivorship, and palliative care. Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional survey. Sample: Stratified into two groups: random sample of general membership (N = 2,205; responses = 287, or 13%) and all DNS active members in the United States with doctoral degrees (N = 627, responses = 144, or 23%); overall response rate was 15%. Methods: The 2000 survey was revised and updated. Postcards were mailed to the original sample (N = 1,605) prior to the launch of the online survey, inviting participation via an online or paper-and-pencil survey. An e-mail announcement of the survey was launched one week later, followed by reminders the following week. Because of low response rates, a second sample (N = 600) was selected and contacted. Main Research Variables: 117 topic questions divided into seven categories. Several items were new or reworded. Findings: The top 20 research priorities included 12 of the top 20 items found in the 2000 survey; 8 topics were new to the top 20. Priority topics were distributed across six of seven categories. When general membership results were compared to the doctoral sample, 10 topics were among the top 20 for both groups. Nine topics were top priorities in the 2000 (researcher) and 2004 (doctorally prepared) surveys. Conclusions: Response rates to the electronic survey were lower than for previous paper-and-pencil surveys, but an adequate response was obtained. Rank order of mean importance ratings was determined by narrow differences in scores. The general membership and doctorally prepared samples showed similarities as well as differences in results. Implications for Nursing: The 2004 survey results will inform the 2005 research agenda and assist the ONS Foundation and other funding organizations in distributing research funds.
引用
收藏
页码:281 / 290
页数:10
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Survey nonresponse
[2]   Delphi survey of nursing research priorities [J].
Cohen, MZ ;
Harle, M ;
Woll, AM ;
Despa, S ;
Munsell, MF .
ONCOLOGY NURSING FORUM, 2004, 31 (05) :1011-1018
[3]  
Dillman DA, 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, V2
[4]  
Funkhouser S W, 1989, Oncol Nurs Forum, V16, P413
[5]  
GRANT M, 1981, ONCOL NURS FORUM, V8, P48
[6]  
McGuire D, 1985, Oncol Nurs Forum, V12, P99
[7]  
Mooney K H, 1991, Oncol Nurs Forum, V18, P1381
[8]  
*ONC NURS SOC, 2003, ONC NURS SOC RES AG
[9]  
*ONC NURS SOC, 2004, SUMM REP 2003 ONS ME
[10]  
Ropka Mary E, 2002, Oncol Nurs Forum, V29, P481, DOI 10.1188/02.ONF.481-491