Beyond ethnography: Engagement and reciprocity as foundations for design research out here

This paper explores an emerging paradigm for HCI design research based primarily upon engagement, reciprocity and doing. Much HCI research begins with an investigatory and analytic ethnographic approach before translating to design. Design may come much later in the process and may never benefit the community that is researched. However in many settings it is difficult for researchers to access the privileged ethnographer position of observer and investigator. Moreover rapid ethnographic research often does not seem the best or most appropriate course of action. We draw upon a project working with a remote Australian Aboriginal community to illustrate an alternative approach in Indigenous research, where the notion of reciprocity is first and foremost. We argue that this can lead to sustainable designs, valid research and profound innovation. This paper received the ACM CHI Best Paper Award, which is awarded to the top 1% of papers submitted to the ACM CHI conference.

Provision of survivorship care for patients with haematological malignancy at completion of treatment: a cancer nursing practice survey study

Purpose Many haematological cancer survivors report long-term physiological and psychosocial effects, which persist far beyond treatment completion. Cancer services have been required to extend care to the post-treatment phase to implement survivorship care strategies into routine practice. As key members of the multidisciplinary team, cancer nurses’ perspectives are essential to inform future developments in survivorship care provision. Methods This is a pilot survey study, involving 119 nurses caring for patients with haematological malignancy in an Australian tertiary cancer care centre. The participants completed an investigator developed survey designed to assess cancer care nurses’ perspectives on their attitudes, confidence levels, and practice in relation to post-treatment survivorship care for patients with a haematological malignancy. Results Overall, the majority of participants agreed that all of the survivorship interventions included in the survey should be within the scope of the nursing role. Nurses reported being least confident in discussing fertility and employment/financial issues with patients and conducting psychosocial distress screening. The interventions performed least often included, discussing fertility, intimacy and sexuality issues and communicating survivorship care with the patient’s primary health care providers. Nurses identified lack of time, limited educational resources, lack of dedicated end-of-treatment consultation and insufficient skills/knowledge as the key barriers to survivorship care provision. Conclusion Cancer centres should implement an appropriate model of survivorship care and provide improved training and educational resources for nurses to enable them to deliver quality survivorship care and meet the needs of haematological cancer survivors.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.