Oncology nursing research: a global perspective

Introduction and background

One of the fundamental requirements for high quality patient care is having a body of knowledge (evidence) to inform care delivery. The specialty of oncology nursing is influenced to a great extent by advances in research, science, and technology that transformed cancer care and led to increasing complexity in the care of cancer patients and their families (1). In turn, nurse scientists responded to the need to grow scientific knowledge underpinning the care of individuals with cancer. The past decades have seen an ever-increasing number of cancer nurses around the world engage in research-related activities, resulting in improvements in cancer care delivery and patient outcomes.

The aim of this paper is to offer a perspective on oncology nursing research from a global perspective. To determine the scope of this article, we asked the question ‘What is oncology nursing research?’ and found that “oncology nursing research is investigation or experimentation aimed at developing or discovering knowledge to inform nursing practice” (2). Given that nurses work throughout the cancer care continuum, from health promotion, prevention, and early diagnosis through treatment and survivorship or end of life (3), it is difficult to conceptualize a research topic that would not ultimately have implications for or inform cancer nursing practice. Work in genetics, pharmacology, molecular science, spirituality, psychology, or health services have relevance given the breadth of our definition.

For the purpose of this paper, we highlight research that is aimed at improving the lives of patients that informs direct oncology nursing practice (what nurses do directly with patients and families) and is conceptualized and led by nurses. We anticipate this reflection provides insight into arenas where oncology nurses can take action to increase their research productivity. Notably, this paper will not fully acknowledge the contribution nurses have made as clinical trials nurses or as members of multidisciplinary research teams. The paper focuses on the overall growth of oncology nursing research, the emerging trends for this area, and the challenges that lie ahead.

Growth of oncology nursing research

Since the mid-1970’s, oncology nursing has been recognized as a specialty and there has been steady growth in global oncology nursing research to support practice. The number of oncology nurses engaged in research-related activities has increased steadily (4,5) influenced by the establishment of new graduate education programs in various parts of the world (6). Evidence of the productivity of cancer nurse scientists can be observed in the steady growth of peer-reviewed grants led by oncology nurse scientists and their publications appearing in a wide range of journals.

Illustrating research productivity

In a bibliometric study in 2021, Yanbing et al. (7) reported a steady growth in global nursing research over the past two decades, with a fivefold increase from 1,691 in 2000 to 8,630 in 2019. In total, there were 88,665 publications in 3,280 different journals overall, with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada accounting for the most publications. Within this total, oncology was ranked in third place with 4,110 papers (4.6%). Yanbing and colleagues noted the trends of increasing numbers of publications and more research collaborations or networks were disproportionately distributed between high and middle/low-income countries. Also, in 2021, Zhu et al. (8) assessed the overall trends in citation impact of high-impact papers in nursing research worldwide. There were 6,886 high impact nursing research papers between 2008 and 2019 with United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden accounting for the highest numbers. Of these papers, oncology was ranked in second place with 643 high-impact papers. In turn, these oncology papers were cited in 7,167 other research articles during that period.

Zhang et al. (9), in 2011, also used a bibliometric analysis to report specifically on cancer nursing research output and topics in the first decade of the 21^st century. Between January 1, 2001, and March 31, 2011, a total of 2,933 publications on cancer nursing from 246 journals were indexed in PubMed. The United States (70.4%), United Kingdom (18.3%) and Canada (3.9%) accounted for the largest number of articles. Most appeared in the Oncology Nursing Forum. Less than 0.1% were from low/middle-income countries (LMIC).

Focusing specifically on cancer, Molassiotis and colleagues (10) completed a systematic review of cancer nursing research as reported worldwide between 1994 and 2005. A total of 619 papers were included with 49% from United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Sweden, Canada, and Australia. Interestingly, more than half (52%) were focused on health care professionals as study participants. The patient populations included mixed cancer diagnoses or patients with breast or haematologic cancers. Two-thirds were quantitative designs and most descriptive in nature.

Uchinuno et al. (11) reported on cancer nursing research articles by Japanese authors published in between 2009–2011. A total of 46 articles appeared primarily in the Japanese Cancer Nursing Journal. Many of these were qualitative studies aimed at understanding the response of cancer patients to disease along with their symptoms and background. In Korea, systematic nursing research began in the 1970’s but cancer research by nurses emerged in the mid-1980’s. According to Choi and colleagues, thirty oncology nursing studies were published in Korean journals between 1980 and 1989 (12) growing to 119 from 1990 to 1998 (13). Although high income countries dominate the oncology nursing publication landscape, as the specialty is emerging in LMIC research publications are emerging from these settings. Several examples are highlighted below.

For paediatric oncology nursing in LMIC, Challinor et al. reported on 137 articles in five languages from 2008 to 2018, demonstrating that research activities for topics such as parent coping, symptom management (in particular pain and fatigue), and children’s quality of life, across all six World Health Organization (WHO) regions (14). In mainland China, Luo et al. carried out a systematic search of paediatric oncology nursing research revealing 133 articles: 106 in Chinese and 27 in English (15). The most frequently researched topics were psychosocial care, clinical nursing practice, and psychometric testing accounting for 63.2% of all publications.

Iribarren et al. (16) provides a glimpse of nurse-led clinical research published by researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean. The scoping review covered 404 articles published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The majority were conducted in Brazil (90.6%) followed by Chile (2.5%). Most were nurse-led projects (95.8%) and about half were implemented in hospitals (48.6%). Studies explored patient knowledge or characterized patient populations (61.3%) and commonly assessed chronic disease (19.3%) or maternity/child health outcomes (15.9%).

From Africa, Maree et al. (17) reported an integrative review of 50 articles on cancer nursing research across the continent between 2005 and 2014. Most articles focused on cancers in women (78%) and the focus of many was on prevention and early detection (62%). Papers were primarily quantitative, gathering some aspect of knowledge from women in the community. Approximately half were published in African-based journals and originated from nine African countries. Maree et al. (18) updated this work in 2021 with a scoping review of 84 articles on cancer nursing research in Africa between 2015 and 2019. These articles came from fourteen African countries. Cervical cancer was the diagnostic focus of 44% of the papers and cervical cancer screening the most investigated topic (28.6%).

Clearly, oncology nursing research is gaining prominence. In LMIC, oncology nursing research is expanding often within partnerships between LMIC and high-income countries (HIC) with nurses from LMIC taking the lead author position.

Identifying research priorities

Since the beginning of the specialty, oncology nursing societies from various parts of the world (see Figure 1) have identified important topic areas or priorities for oncology nursing research. These initiatives produce documents to guide the science, develop research agendas, advocate for funding, and drive activity for specific investigations. Some priorities remained throughout the years (e.g., quality of life, symptom management) while others have shifted with health care priorities and cultural issues.

Figure 1 Regional and large country oncology nursing societies. WHO, World Health Organization.

The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) in United States of America began this activity of identifying research priorities for oncology nursing. The ONS is the one association that has reported research priorities consistently since 1980 (19) with regular updates. Table 1 highlights some of the priorities that ranked in importance in various reports from this organization. Over the years, priorities were reported in degrees of specificity beginning with single symptom to symptom clusters identification, and moving to thematic descriptions and needs for different research methodology. This may reflect the growth and sophistication in the field.

In Canada, this emergence of cancer nursing research priorities was seen in 1987. Cancer nurses reported results of a Delphi study identifying priorities to guide the Canadian research agenda for a network of cancer nurse researchers (29). The top-ranked topic with respect to patient welfare was “find ways to prevent and/or treat stomatitis from chemotherapy”, whereas the top-ranked topic with respect to nursing practice was, “determine strategies for promoting morale and preventing burnout among nurses in oncology”. In 1999, Fitch et al. (30) reported research priorities identified through a national survey of Canadian cancer nurses conducted in collaboration with the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology/Association Canadienne des infirmieres en oncologie (CANO/ACIO). The top issues from practicing nurses, included anxiety, coping/stress management, bereavement/death, fatigue, metastatic disease, comfort, pain control and management, quality of life, recurrence of primary cancer, and nurse burn-out. Top issues from the CANO/ACIO members were communication, symptom management, quality of life, pain control/management, and standards of practice. The top research priorities from nurse scientists were pain control/management, family issues, patient participation in decision making, symptom management, and communication. Clearly, opinions about priorities for research differed between nurses in clinical practice and in academic research settings.

Other countries have reports regarding cancer nursing research priorities. In 2000, the Norwegian Society of Nurses in Cancer Care (31) reported quality of life as the most important research priority among members. Psychosocial support/counseling, communication between patient and nurse, patient participation in decision making, nurse burnout, and ethics were also identified. Yates et al. (32) reported research priorities for cancer nurses in Queensland, Australia, in 2002, including psychosocial support, pain management, and symptom management. While in Ireland, in 2003, McIlfatrick and Keeney reported psychosocial issues (e.g., communication and information needs), professional issues relating to nurse burnout, stress and nurse-led care; and context of care issues including continuity of care were ranked as top priorities (33).

More recently, from Italy in 2020, Cadorin et al. (34) completed a systematic review of literature describing the cancer nursing research priorities as seen by cancer nurses and patients. The literature search between 2000 and 2018 included 15 studies. The research priorities were categorized as disease control and management, patient-related issues, and professional dimensions and issues. In this review, the management of symptoms including pain, education, information, and communication were consistently present research priorities across the articles.

In 2023, the European ONS reported several topics of priority for research throughout Europe (35). These included needs of patients related to communication, information, and education; symptom management; experiences of disease and its treatment; cancer nursing research issues (e.g., research facilitation), and cancer nursing education issues.

From Asia, both China and India contributed reports on nursing research priorities although not specifically for cancer research. Yin et al. reported on a participatory process involving nurses from service and education who identified priorities for nursing research for the Republic of China in 2000 (36). Care quality, care of the elderly, infectious disease prevention were priority topics. In nursing education, research addressing advanced role preparation, and bridging education and practice were priorities. Nursing management identified economic evaluation, personnel administration, and effectiveness as the priority.

India has a long tradition in nursing research traced back to 1955 (37,38). Recent developments include formation of The Nursing Research Society of India and the launch of a journal in 2007. A National Consortium for Nursing PhDs formed in 2005 with the National Consortium for Nursing Research in 2009; both provide leadership for research in that country. The Indian Nursing Council identified nine key areas for nursing research (39) with integration of research into practice seen as an important direction for the country. The ONS of India, inaugurated in 1994, actively supports research. Recently, they announced support for research projects on topics including (I) antibiotic prophylaxis for clean head & neck surgery; (II) efficacy of Duoderm vs. Gention violet in post radiation breast cancer patients; (III) efficacy of high protein food in patients of head and neck cancer receiving external radiation therapy; (IV) the role of nurse in tumour lysis syndrome; (V) infection rate in long term central venous catheters; (VI) complication rate in bone marrow transplantation; and (VII) quality of life in breast cancer patients (40).

Finally, the Korean ONS first reported on research priorities in 2003 (41). Over 70% of their respondents had hospital experience with only two identifying research as their primary function. The top research priorities were identified as prevention of cancer/cancer risk reduction, pain, quality of life, hospice/end of-life care, and standards of care. Pain was voted most frequently as the top priority.

It is important to note that health research priorities, and those of cancer nursing research, are highly context dependent. They tend to vary based on culture, traditions, belief systems, resources, health care systems organizational structures and processes. Of particular influence is the availability of resources for research in a country. The availability is frequently linked to the priorities for health care in that setting and the nature of research funding programs. Nurses have faced challenges in obtaining funding for nursing research given this context. Co-operative clinical trials approaches, multidisciplinary research teams and aligning research questions with existing health care priorities have been utilized by nurses to assess funding for their unique work.

Identified research priorities also vary based on who is involved in the efforts to identify the priorities. Throughout the priorities reports cited in this article, authors wrote about differences between the views of nurses from clinical practice and nurse researchers about priorities. Many urged, closer collaboration between the two groups. Nursing is like other health disciplines with different domains and expertise (e.g., clinical practice, education, management, research), yet research serves to connect the three and is vital if we are to produce relevant/meaningful/impactful research for practice.

Emerging trends in oncology nursing research

Several important trends emerged over the past decade in the nature and direction of cancer nursing research. Although these trends reflect the broader cancer literature, cancer nurses make significant contributions in these areas and the trends are likely to continue influencing future directions for cancer nursing. Each will be highlighted below.

Use of complex research study designs

One trend in cancer nursing research is an evolution in the types of research designs used by nurse scientists. Early studies in the field of cancer nursing focused on descriptive designs, a necessary first step for gathering insight into a topic area or needs of a population and understanding nursing practice. These types of designs are easily handled by novice nurse scientists and can constitute much of the early nursing research reporting in a region or country. Many studies report cross-sectional survey results and explore associations between and among variables. As the evidence grew in a topic area, more complex designs emerged including experimental (i.e., pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, randomized clinical trials) and psychometric approaches (5,42,43). These design approaches allowed cancer nursing scientists to develop and test new measurement tools and mount interventional studies, a design needed to improve patient outcomes and deliver high-quality care (44).

Two recent systematic reviews illustrated the growing base of intervention research. Gomez Del Pulgar et al. reported a review of nursing interventions effective in the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCD) (45). Included were fifteen studies from eight countries, all of which were randomized trials contrasting usual practice with a new interventional strategy offered by nurses. Effective nurse interventions included house calls, home care, and individual and group health education demonstrating 76.4% effectiveness on patient outcomes of promoting healthier lifestyles and quality of life in NCD. Alfaro-Díaz et al. reviewed the characteristics and effectiveness of nursing interventions for patients with cancer and their family members (46). The systematic review of literature from 2009 to 2020 resulted in 19 studies. The interventions were (I) support and cognitive components (n=3); (II) skills training for the caregiver (n=3); (III) managing symptoms to enhance care (n=8); (IV) dyadic or family-patient relationship (n=4); and (V) targeted to the patient’s condition (n=1).

Increasingly complex study designs appear with regularity in the cancer research literature and reflect the capacity to produce a high level of evidence in both the quantitative and qualitative arenas (47). One is the application of meta-analysis, a design approach only available once there is sufficient original research on a topic from which to draw and combine robust analysis. An example is Eche et al. who utilized a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore research evaluating moral distress of nurses (48). This work included eight cross-sectional studies consisting of 2,686 participants (1,654 were cancer nurses). Moral distress among oncology nurses was a significant predictor for burnout, provider communication, decisions surrounding end-of-life care, work conditions (e.g., patient assignment, type of unit), and the inability to provide compassionate care.

Another complex type of study design used with increasing frequency by nurse scientists is a mixed method approach where quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined to answer a research question. This design adds depth and breadth of understanding to a topic and allows greater insight into its complexity. These types of studies can make use a various types of quantitative and qualitative approaches selected for their relevance in answering the particular research question posed. An example, Waelli et al. (49) used mixed methods to understand patient experiences regarding the attention given to important clinical and non-clinical concerns. Investigators used a questionnaire to assess importance that breast cancer patients attach to clinical and non-clinical demands and the extent to which each demand was taken into account by health care professionals. The qualitative analysis based on semi-structured interviews explored the content of specific non-clinical demands. It is imperative that mixed method studies link both the quantitative and qualitative aims for sufficient patient outcomes.

The need to demonstrate the impact of nursing interventions on patient outcomes continues to drive the importance of interventional research. As countries continue to grow their cadre of cancer nurse scientists, skills must be built to conduct interventional studies with sufficient sample sizes is a priority.

Co-design involving stakeholders: patients, caregivers, policymakers

Engaging patients as partners in care decision-making and in making improvements in health care systems and facilities has gained prominence with the movement toward person-centered care (3,50,51). Similar directions emerge in the research world where the phrase ‘engaging stakeholders’ is used to reflect a broader constituency than patients alone. Stakeholders refers to any person or organization who has an invested interest in the outcome of the research. This could include patients, family members/caregivers, allied health professionals, oncologists, administrators, and decision makers (52).

Engaging stakeholders, including people with cancer and their carers, aims to generate relevant and meaningful research questions, data collection approaches and interpretation, and future implementation of results (53,54). Models for engaging stakeholders in research projects have been developed and include involvement in generating priorities, designing questions and data collection instruments, gathering data, and planning dissemination of results (55). The stakeholders can be integrated into the investigative team or serve on advisory groups.

Examples illustrating how cancer nursing scientists embrace this trend are seen in Cox et al. (56) and Bird et al. (57). Cox and colleagues, in collaboration with the United Kingdom ONS, used a Delphi approach with cancer nurses and patients to reach consensus on research priorities for the United Kingdom (56). There was consensus regarding research relating to prevention, screening, early diagnosis, and psychological care across the cancer trajectory, but little consensus related to symptoms. Patients reached consensus on palliative care, while nurses reached consensus on eHealth and technology research. Bird and colleagues reviewed studies evaluating the impact of patient partnerships in research (57). They identified fourteen studies describing patient involvement in various research activities. Barriers were reported such as power imbalances between patient partners and researchers, and valuing patient partner roles by researchers. Facilitators included inclusive recruiting and training. Patient engagement in research continues with models for meaningful engagement. Strategies for interaction with stakeholders are influence by cultural and professional norms related to global location (58).

Paying attention to meaningful equality, diversity, inclusion, and unique needs

Awareness regarding health disparities has gained significant prominence in cancer-related work. Disparities in cancer incidence and outcomes reflect general health disparities underpinned by deep rooted social and economic inequalities (59). Variations in patient outcomes have been reported from country to country linked to variations in health care systems, ethnicity, financial, social, and economic status as well as access and availability cancer care facilities (60,61). Whilst these challenges are longstanding in research, positive action is required. Strategies aimed specifically at broadening participation in research offer a range of activities to consider (62-64).

Cancer nurse scientists were early and continuing innovators in this domain. Their research, using a disparities lens, was directed toward understanding barriers and facilitators for various populations in accessing cancer screening and early detection (65), documenting unmet needs of patients (14) and survivors, and implementing targeted education programs (66,67). As the evidence about variation in needs emerged, there are calls for tailoring approaches in cancer care based on sociodemographic, personality, and epigenetic characteristics. Personalized care is not only about molecular-based interventions and is embraced in cancer settings in LMIC. A Turkish study reported nurses’ and patients’ perspective on ‘individualized” care revealed a difference between the two groups (68). Nurses expressed positive perspectives about this concept especially those with years of clinical experience.

Identifying those at risk is an important initial step to implementing tailored interventions for people with or at risk of cancer. It is a key role for nurses in daily practice. Cancer nursing researchers have been leaders in developing approaches to identify those at risk and incorporate workable tools for risk identification into practice. For example, implementing the 6^th vital sign work in Canada, updating the supportive care framework from Australia, and promoting stepped triage for cancer survivors (69,70).

Meeting the physical, cultural, and spiritual needs of the patient is a priority in oncology nursing care. This is illustrated with an example of the palliative oncology nurse and his patient’s family worked together to mitigate cultural barriers (3). The patient dying in Cameroon with a protruding abdomen, which according to culture signifies that people are prohibited to console the bereft family and only the immediate family can take part in the burial. The oncology nurse worked with the patient and family finding a solution for both parties—minimizing stigma and providing comfort.

Cancer nursing scientists make significant contributions to the study of unique populations, raising awareness about the needs of various cancer in these groups. Recognizing that meeting the needs of these populations requires different, even unique, approaches to resolve patient issues and provide best care has led cancer nurse scientists to focus on needs assessments and develop tailored programs. Although there may be common needs that all cancer patients share (e.g., all have physical needs), yet how needs are experienced, expressed and handled differ depending on characteristics such as cancer type and stage, age, and gender preferences.

Hence cancer nurse scientists describe needs of individuals with different types of common cancers such as breast (71) and lung (72) and recent work on populations with rare types of cancer (73,74) and individuals considered survivors (75,76). Research focused on needs of various age groups describes the needs of adolescent and young adult populations (77,78) and older adults (79-81). These populations show wide heterogeneity in need; and a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not be effective for meeting their needs. In LMIC, there is significant concern about low survival rates for pediatric oncology patients, nurse scientists are adding to the evidence for care of pediatric patients. As an example, Mezgebu et al. offered pediatric oncology exemplars from LMIC settings of three WHO regions: Eastern Africa, Latin America and Eastern Mediterranean area (4). Participants emphasized the need for locally derived evidence to guide practice but faced many challenges in conducting the research (e.g., lack of training, mentors, funding, and opportunities).

To date, relatively little investigation has been published to understand the unique needs of cancer patients who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and other sexual and gender minority groups (LGBQ+). These groups, alongside care partners and advocates can shape the cancer research portfolio with increased research (82).

Additionally, cancer nurse scientists make contributions to the study of caregiver needs and palliative care. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Zhu et al. drew a total of 26 studies from seven databases describing the experiences of family caregivers caring for individuals with advanced disease (83). A systematic review on nurses’ knowledge regarding palliative care identified 20 studies from 10 different countries. Overall there was a lack of knowledge linked to several factors including education, sociodemographic, years of experience and clinical setting (84).

Contextualizing investigation for local settings

There is a growing recognition of the need for contextualized knowledge. This need emerged not only from nurses in LMIC (e.g., slums of India/Nairobi, the jungles of Brazil), but also from those in HIC working in challenging locations (i.e., the Far North of Canada, the Outback of Australia) and from those caring for Indigenous populations in countries around the world (85,86). The living conditions, cultures, traditional practices, and beliefs about health and illness are contextual realities that need to be understood if relevant solutions are to be identified for cancer nursing care. Solutions generated using Euro-American contexts are not going to be helpful across all regions where health systems and available solutions vary widely. Partnerships with nurse scientists from HIC can be helpful, but there is a need to emphasize the importance of building research capacity and leadership within the local environments and communities.

As oncology nursing emerges in a region and graduate education programs are established, publication of context-specific evidence for cancer nursing practice is growing (87). For example, doctoral research by oncology nurse scientists is growing following the establishment of PhD programs in South Africa and Nigeria (87,88). Oncology Masters’ programs at the University of Nairobi, Aga Khan University, and the University of Rwanda have seen research productivity from graduates (89,90). Subsequently, some graduates are working in clinical settings where they apply their research knowledge and conduct clinical studies (91). Collectively, research projects are beginning to describe the needs of local populations laying the foundation for building more complex interventional designs.

However, the process of producing and growing context-specific science in local settings can be slow requiring long-term commitment to build capacity and realize success. Partnerships and research collaborations/networks are useful, helping to enhance this process, if there is bi-directional exchange (92). Building on existing work can be helpful but often adaptation is necessary. One popular framework for this purpose of adapting existing work for a new setting, the Knowledge to Action Framework, was developed by a Canadian nurse (93).

Conducting research that produces contextualized evidence will likely require new designs and data collection approaches. The ‘gold standard’ of randomized clinical trials needs to be questioned regarding whether this is helpful in every situation. Participatory action approaches and designs that allow for questions and methodologies to emerge organically as a project unfolds are more in keeping with implementing contextualized approaches (94). As this trend continues to drive future investigations, both engagement and leadership from those who know and understand local context will be needed. Understanding how work is conducted and how relationships are established and operationalized varies from setting to setting. Funding for these types of projects needs to include both the strategies to engage stakeholders as well as the actual data collection and analysis.

Integrating research into practice

For cancer nurses, findings from research studies must impact the care and well-being of patients and families. This requires not only generating relevant findings, but also knowledge exchange (i.e., ensuring those results are known and taken up in practice settings). Nursing leaders call for the integration of cancer nursing research into daily practice. Yet how this unfolds varies widely around the world. Different interpretations of what it means to integrate research emerged resulting in a wide range of strategies used to enhance research-based or evidence-based practice. Strategies range from education programs, expecting advanced practice nurses to be knowledge brokers, and establishing departments of nursing and multidisciplinary research units in health facilities, including cancer centres.

A critical aspect of integrating research in practice settings is exposing cancer nurses to research and the research process while developing attitudes of curiosity and freedom to question. Some argue that this exposure ought to begin in basic nursing education programs and be strengthened in practice settings (95). Yet there are barriers for this activity since the nature of clinical settings include shortage of staff, task-oriented cultures, poor attitudes toward nurses as knowledge workers, and lack of value for an inquisitive attitude regarding improvements/change (96). These barriers can interfere with the integration of evidence-based care particularly in LMIC (97).

Factors interfering with the integration of research into cancer nursing practice are documented in HIC (98,99). Interestingly, the factors are similar in LMIC although the magnitude of the challenge(s) and solution(s) differ (100,101). Factors include staff shortages, high patient to nurse ratios, lack of access to research-related education, lack of research relevant results, lack of researchers with expertise, and low levels of funding for nurses to engage in research related activity. Focused attention on these issues is needed to see better integration of research into clinical practice (102). There are challenges facing cancer nursing scientists to a greater or lesser degrees around the world. In Table 2 barriers are presented that cancer nursing research will encounter in the years ahead. These concepts must be integrated into future research studies. But today cancer nursing research is strong with a foundation to expand studies globally. The evidence for cancer nursing care is laid but it must continue to be tested, examined, and enlarged.

Conclusions

This paper offers a perspective on oncology nursing research from a global point of view. As the speciality has grown, so has nursing research productivity. Although the predominant activity has occurred in HIC, the number of nurse scientists in LMIC is growing. Clearly, a body of evidence exists to support nursing care of cancer patients globally. However, the future requires continued efforts to demonstrate the impact of nursing interventions relating to patient outcomes, while engaging in research through collaboration with stakeholders to build infrastructures and capacity for on-going oncology nursing research productivity across the globe.

Acknowledgments

Funding: This work was supported by the MSK NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) as it supports the infrastructure for the staff working at the Center.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Annals of Palliative Medicine, for the series “Oncology Nursing”. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-23-382/prf

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://apm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/apm-23-382/coif). The series “Oncology Nursing” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. M.I.F. and A.Y. served as the unpaid Guest Editors of the series. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Watson L, Qi S, Link C, et al. Patient-Reported Symptom Complexity and Acute Care Utilization Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using a Novel Symptom Complexity Algorithm and Observational Data. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023;21:173-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. O'Mara A. What is cancer nursing research? Cancer Nurs 2015;38:81-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Young AM, Charalambous A, Owen RI, et al. Essential oncology nursing care along the cancer continuum. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:e555-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Mezgebu E, Anwarali S, Durañona M, et al. Pediatric Oncology Nursing Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Exemplars from Three Regions. Semin Oncol Nurs 2021;37:151168. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Charalambous A, Wells M, Campbell P, et al. A scoping review of trials of interventions led or delivered by cancer nurses. Int J Nurs Stud 2018;86:36-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Karim S, Sunderji Z, Jalink M, et al. Oncology training and education initiatives in low and middle income countries: a scoping review. Ecancermedicalscience 2021;15:1296. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Yanbing S, Hua L, Chao L, et al. The state of nursing research from 2000 to 2019: A global analysis. J Adv Nurs 2021;77:162-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Zhu R, Liu M, Su Y, et al. A bibliometric analysis of publication of funded studies in nursing research from Web of Science, 2008-2018. J Adv Nurs 2021;77:176-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Zhang XC, Huang DS, Li F. Cancer nursing research output and topics in the first decade of the 21st century: results of a bibliometric and co-word cluster analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2011;12:2055-8. [PubMed]
10. Molassiotis A, Gibson F, Kelly D, et al. A systematic review of worldwide cancer nursing research: 1994 to 2003. Cancer Nurs 2006;29:431-40. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Uchinuno A. Research trends of oncology nursing in Japan and around the world. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012;42:882-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Choi SH, Nam YH, Ryu EJ, et al. An integrative review of oncology nursing research: 1980-1998. J Korean Acad Nurs 1998;28:786-800. [Crossref]
13. Choi KS, Song MS, Hwang AR, et al. The trends of nursing research in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing. J Korean Acad Nurs 2000;30:1207-18. [Crossref]
14. Challinor JM, Day SW, Afungchwi GM, et al. Pediatric Oncology Nursing Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. In: Hinds PM, Linder L, editors. Pediatric Oncology Nursing; Defining Care through Science. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2020:275-342.
15. Luo YH, Yin SH, Xu J, et al. Analysis of Pediatric Oncology Nursing Research in Mainland China, 2008-2018. Cancer Nurs 2022;45:E206-E228. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Iribarren S, Stonbraker S, Larsen B, et al. Clinical nursing and midwifery research in Latin American and Caribbean countries: A scoping review. Int J Nurs Pract 2018;24:e12623. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Maree JE, Herbert V, Huiskamp AA. Cancer Nursing Research Output in Africa 2005 to 2014: An Integrative Review. Cancer Nurs 2017;40:E36-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Maree JE, Khutjwe JV, Swart NC, et al. Cancer nursing research output in Africa 2015 to 2019. A scoping review. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences 2021;15:100381. [Crossref]
19. Grant M, Stromborg M. Promoting research collaboration: ONS Research Committee Survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 1981;8:48-60.
20. Mooney KH, Ferrell BR, Nail LM, et al. 1991 Oncology Nursing Society Research Priorities Survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 1991;18:1381-8. [PubMed]
21. Stetz KM, Haberman MR, Holcombe J, et al. 1994 Oncology Nursing Society Research Priorities Survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 1995;22:785-9. [PubMed]
22. Berger AM, Berry DL, Christopher KA, et al. Oncology Nursing Society year 2004 research priorities survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 2005;32:281-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
23. Doorenbos AZ, Berger AM, Brohard-Holbert C, et al. 2008 ONS research priorities survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 2008;35:E100-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
24. LoBiondo-Wood G, Brown CG, Knobf MT, et al. Priorities for oncology nursing research: the 2013 national survey. Oncol Nurs Forum 2014;41:67-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
25. Knobf MT, Cooley ME, Duffy S, et al. The 2014-2018 Oncology Nursing Society Research Agenda. Oncol Nurs Forum 2015;42:450-65. [Crossref] [PubMed]
26. Von Ah D, Brown CG, Brown SJ, et al. Research Agenda of the Oncology Nursing Society: 2019-2022. Oncol Nurs Forum 2019;46:654-69. [Crossref] [PubMed]
27. Jones RA, Hirschey R, Campbell G, et al. Update to 2019-2022 ONS Research Agenda: Rapid Review to Promote Equity in Oncology Healthcare Access and Workforce Development. Oncol Nurs Forum 2021;48:604-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Jones RA, Hirschey R, Campbell G, et al. Update to 2019-2022 ONS Research Agenda: Rapid Review to Address Structural Racism and Health Inequities. Oncol Nurs Forum 2021;48:589-600. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Priorities for cancer nursing research. A Canadian replication. Western Consortium for Cancer Nursing Research. Cancer Nurs 1987;10:319-26. [PubMed]
30. Fitch MI, Bakker D, Conlon M. Important issues in clinical practice: perspectives of oncology nurses. Can Oncol Nurs J 1999;9:151-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
31. Rustøen T, Schjølberg TK. Cancer nursing research priorities: a Norwegian perspective. Cancer Nurs 2000;23:375-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
32. Yates P, Baker D, Barrett L, et al. Cancer nursing research in Queensland, Australia: barriers, priorities, and strategies for progress. Cancer Nurs 2002;25:167-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
33. Mcilfatrick SJ, Keeney S. Identifying cancer nursing research priorities using the Delphi technique. J Adv Nurs 2003;42:629-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
34. Cadorin L, Bressan V, Truccolo I, et al. Priorities for Cancer Research From the Viewpoints of Cancer Nurses and Cancer Patients: A Mixed-Method Systematic Review. Cancer Nurs 2020;43:238-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
35. Dowling M, Efstathiou N, Drury A, et al. Cancer nursing research priorities: A rapid review. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2023;63:102272. [Crossref] [PubMed]
36. Yin TJ, Hsu N, Tsai SL, et al. Priority-setting for nursing research in the Republic of China. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:19-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
37. Hayter M, Ahankari A, Jamadar K, et al. Growth, challenges and opportunities in Indian nursing. J Adv Nurs 2019;75:1147-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
38. Macaden L. Nursing Research in India: keeping pace or time to catch up. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education 2020;21:6-11. [Crossref]
39. The Nursing Research Society of India. NRSI Homepage. 2019. Available online: http://www.nrsindia.org/. Accessed 20th March 2023.
40. The Oncology Nursing Society of India. The Oncology Nursing Society of India Homepage. 2023. Available online: https://tmc.gov.in/index.php/en/onai1. Accessed 20th March 2023.
41. Lee EH, Kim JS, Chung BY, et al. Research priorities of Korean oncology nurses. Cancer Nurs 2003;26:387-91. [Crossref] [PubMed]
42. Fontaine G, Cossette S, Maheu-Cadotte MA, et al. Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol. Syst Rev 2019;8:305. [Crossref] [PubMed]
43. Lei F, Chen WT, Brecht ML, et al. Cross-Cultural Instrument Adaptation and Validation of Health Beliefs About Cancer Screening: A Methodological Systematic Review. Cancer Nurs 2022;45:387-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
44. Cope DG. Nursing Intervention Research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2015;42:409-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
45. Gomez Del Pulgar M, Cuevas-Budhart MA, Hernández-Iglesias S, et al. Best Nursing Intervention Practices to Prevent Non-Communicable Disease: A Systematic Review. Public Health Rev 2022;43:1604429. [Crossref] [PubMed]
46. Alfaro-Díaz C, Svavarsdottir EK, Esandi N, et al. Effectiveness of Nursing Interventions for Patients With Cancer and their Family Members: A Systematic Review. J Fam Nurs 2022;28:95-114. [Crossref] [PubMed]
47. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1995;274:1800-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
48. Eche IJ, Phillips CS, Alcindor N, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analytic Evaluation of Moral Distress in Oncology Nursing. Cancer Nurs 2023;46:128-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
49. Waelli M, Minvielle E, Acero MX, et al. What matters to patients? A mixed method study of the importance and consideration of oncology patient demands. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21:256. [Crossref] [PubMed]
50. Charalambous A, Chappell NL, Katajisto J, et al. The conceptualization and measurement of individualized care. Geriatr Nurs 2012;33:17-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
51. Bokhour BG, Fix GM, Mueller NM, et al. How can healthcare organizations implement patient-centered care? Examining a large-scale cultural transformation. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:168. [Crossref] [PubMed]
52. Harrison JD, Auerbach AD, Anderson W, et al. Patient stakeholder engagement in research: A narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities. Health Expect 2019;22:307-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
53. Crockett LK, Shimmin C, Wittmeier KDM, et al. Engaging patients and the public in Health Research: experiences, perceptions and training needs among Manitoba health researchers. Res Involv Engagem 2019;5:28. [Crossref] [PubMed]
54. Barnieh L, Jun M, Laupacis A, et al. Determining research priorities through partnership with patients: an overview. Semin Dial 2015;28:141-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
55. Kendall C, Fitzgerald M, Kang RS, et al. "Still learning and evolving in our approaches": patient and stakeholder engagement among Canadian community-based primary health care researchers. Res Involv Engagem 2018;4:47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
56. Cox A, Arber A, Gallagher A, et al. Establishing Priorities for Oncology Nursing Research: Nurse and Patient Collaboration. Oncol Nurs Forum 2017;44:192-203. [PubMed]
57. Bird M, Ouellette C, Whitmore C, et al. Preparing for patient partnership: A scoping review of patient partner engagement and evaluation in research. Health Expect 2020;23:523-39. [Crossref] [PubMed]
58. Bird M, McGillion M, Chambers EM, et al. A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework. Res Involv Engagem 2021;7:12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
59. Marmot M. Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on. BMJ 2020;368:m693. [Crossref] [PubMed]
60. The Lancet Oncology. Racial disparities in cancer care: can we close the gap? Lancet Oncol 2021;22:1643. [Crossref] [PubMed]
61. Truant T. Equity in Cancer Care: Strategies for Oncology Nurses. Nurs Clin North Am 2017;52:211-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
62. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit. National Institute for Health and Care Research; 2022. Available online: rdsresources.org.uk
63. Dawson S, Banister K, Biggs K, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice. Trials 2022;23:672. Erratum in: Trials 2022;23:760. [Crossref] [PubMed]
64. Smart A. Engaging patients from minority ethnic groups with clinical trials for blood cancer. 2021. Available online: https://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/id/eprint/14222
65. Gutnik LA, Matanje-Mwagomba B, Msosa V, et al. Breast Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Perspective From Malawi. J Glob Oncol 2015;2:4-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
66. Smith AL, Hart NH, Jefford M, et al. Survivorship research for people with metastatic or advanced cancer: A time for action. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2022;9:185-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
67. Chan CW, Richardson A, Richardson J. Managing symptoms in patients with advanced lung cancer during radiotherapy: results of a psychoeducational randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;41:347-57. [Crossref] [PubMed]
68. Altinisik M, Arikan F. "Individualized Care" From the Viewpoint of Turkish Patients and Oncology Nurses. Cancer Nurs 2022;45:E903-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
69. McCabe MS, Partridge AH, Grunfeld E, et al. Risk-based health care, the cancer survivor, the oncologist, and the primary care physician. Semin Oncol 2013;40:804-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
70. Krishnasamy M, Hyatt A, Chung H, et al. Refocusing cancer supportive care: a framework for integrated cancer care. Support Care Cancer 2022;31:14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
71. Yates P, Aranda S, Hargraves M, et al. Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention for managing fatigue in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6027-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
72. Kotronoulas G, Papadopoulou C, Simpson MF, et al. Using patient-reported outcome measures to deliver enhanced supportive care to people with lung cancer: feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led consultation model. Support Care Cancer 2018;26:3729-37. [Crossref] [PubMed]
73. Downing A, Glaser AW, Finan PJ, et al. Functional Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life After Curative Treatment for Rectal Cancer: A Population-Level Study in England. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;103:1132-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
74. Mason SJ, Downing A, Wright P, et al. Health-related quality of life after treatment for bladder cancer in England. Br J Cancer 2018;118:1518-28. [Crossref] [PubMed]
75. Brearley SG, Stamataki Z, Addington-Hall J, et al. The physical and practical problems experienced by cancer survivors: a rapid review and synthesis of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2011;15:204-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
76. Rodríguez-Matesanz I, Ambrosio L, Domingo-Oslé M, et al. Are Nursing Interventions Effective in Improving Quality of Life in Cancer Survivors? A Systematic Review. Cancer Nurs 2022;45:E134-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
77. Bradford NK, Chan RJ. Health promotion and psychological interventions for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: A systematic literature review. Cancer Treat Rev 2017;55:57-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
78. Nicoll I, Lockwood G, Chan RJ, et al. What do adolescents and young adults perceive is the main challenge during the transition to survivorship? Can Oncol Nurs J 2020;30:309-13. [PubMed]
79. Van Cleave JH, Kenis C, Sattar S, et al. A Research Agenda for Gero-Oncology Nursing. Semin Oncol Nurs 2016;32:55-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
80. Strohschein FJ, Newton L, Puts M, et al. Optimizing the Care of Older Canadians with Cancer and their Families: A Statement Articulating the Position and Contribution of Canadian Oncology Nurses. Can Oncol Nurs J 2021;31:352-6. [PubMed]
81. Grov EK, Ytrehus S. Do You Feel Safe at Home? A Qualitative Study among Home-Dwelling Older Adults with Advanced Incurable Cancer. Healthcare (Basel) 2022;10:2384. [Crossref] [PubMed]
82. Waters AR, Tennant K, Cloyes KG. Cultivating LGBTQ+ Competent Cancer Research: Recommendations from LGBTQ+ Cancer Survivors, Care Partners, and Community Advocates. Semin Oncol Nurs 2021;37:151227. [Crossref] [PubMed]
83. Zhu Y, Pei X, Chen X, et al. Family Caregivers' Experiences of Caring for Advanced Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis. Cancer Nurs 2023;46:270-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
84. Parajuli J, Hupcey J. A Systematic Review on Oncology Nurses' Knowledge on Palliative Care. Cancer Nurs 2021;44:E311-22. [Crossref] [PubMed]
85. Burhansstipanov L, Krebs LU, Harjo L, et al. Findings from American Indian Needs Assessments. J Cancer Educ 2018;33:576-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
86. Krebs LU, Burhansstipanov L, Watanabe-Galloway S, et al. Navigation as an intervention to eliminate disparities in American Indian communities. Semin Oncol Nurs 2013;29:118-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
87. Jansen van Rensburg JJM, Maree JE, Casteleijn D. An Investigation into the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients in South Africa. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2017;4:336-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
88. Maree JE, Mosalo A, Wright SC. 'It depends on how the relationship was before you became ill': black South African women's experiences of life partner support through the trajectory of cervical cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2013;22:459-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
89. Igiraneza PC, Omondi LA, Nikuze B, et al. Factors influencing breast cancer screening practices among women of reproductive age in South Kayonza District, Rwanda. Can Oncol Nurs J 2021;31:251-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
90. Uwayezu MG, Gishoma D, Sego R, et al. Anxiety and depression among cancer patients: Prevalence and associated factors at a Rwandan referral hospital. Rwanda J Med Health Sci 2019;2:118-25. [Crossref]
91. Mwangi SN, Onsongo L, Ogutu JO. Factors effecting quality of life for family caregivers of cancer patients in Kenya. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal 2022;32:542-9. [Crossref]
92. Redko C, Bessong P, Burt D, et al. Exploring the Significance of Bidirectional Learning for Global Health Education. Ann Glob Health 2016;82:955-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
93. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006;26:13-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
94. Vaughn LM, Jacquez F, editors. Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods 2020. doi: 10.35844/001c.13244.10.35844/001c.13244
95. Abdullah G, Stacey D. Role of oncology nurses in integrated knowledge translation. Can Oncol Nurs J 2014;24:63-6. [PubMed]
96. Dagne AH, Beshah MH. Implementation of evidence-based practice: The experience of nurses and midwives. PLoS One 2021;16:e0256600. [Crossref] [PubMed]
97. Challinor JM, Galassi AL, Al-Ruzzieh MA, et al. Nursing's Potential to Address the Growing Cancer Burden in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. J Glob Oncol 2016;2:154-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
98. Mathieson A, Grande G, Luker K. Strategies, facilitators and barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice in community nursing: a systematic mixed-studies review and qualitative synthesis. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2019;20:e6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
99. Estabrooks CA, Tourangeau AE, Humphrey CK, et al. Measuring the hospital practice environment: a Canadian context. Res Nurs Health 2002;25:256-68. [Crossref] [PubMed]
100. Murunga VI, Oronje RN, Bates I, et al. Review of published evidence on knowledge translation capacity, practice and support among researchers and research institutions in low- and middle-income countries. Health Res Policy Syst 2020;18:16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
101. Zhang J, Yan QY, Yue S. Nursing research capacity and its management in China: A systematic review. J Nurs Manag 2020;28:199-208. [Crossref] [PubMed]
102. Nkrumah I, Atuhaire C, Priebe G, et al. Barriers for nurses' participation in and utilisation of clinical research in three hospitals within the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. Pan Afr Med J 2018;30:24. [Crossref] [PubMed]