Barriers to working with people affected by cancer: Preliminary qualitative data from a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Nutrition may affect occurrence, recurrence and survival rates and many cancer patients and survivors seek individualized nutrition advice. Appropriately skilled nutritional therapy (NT) practitioners may be well-placed to safely provide this advice, but little is known of their perspectives on working with people affected by cancer. This mixed-methods study seeks to explore their views on training, barriers to practice, use of evidence, and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice. Preliminary data on barriers to practice are reported here. Methods: Two cohorts of NT practitioners were recruited from all UK registered NT practitioners, by an on-line anonymous survey. 84 cancer practitioners (CP) and 165 non-cancer practitioners (NCP) were recruited. Mixed quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the survey. Content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on the use of evidence, barriers to practice and perceived needs for working with clients with cancer, for further exploration using interviews and focus groups. Preliminary results: For the NCP cohort, exploring themes of perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer suggested that perceived complexity, risk and need for caution in this area of practice were important barriers. Insufficient specialist knowledge and skills also emerged as barriers. Some NCPs perceived opposition from medical practitioners and other mainstream healthcare professions as an obstacle to starting cancer practice. To overcome these barriers, specialist training emerged as most important. For the CP cohort, in exploring the skills they considered enabled them to undertake cancer work, specialist clinical and technical knowledge emerged strongly. Only 10% CP participants did not want more work with people affected by cancer. 10% CPs reported some NHS referrals, whereas most received clients by self-referral or from other practitioners. When considering barriers that impede their cancer practice, the dominant categories for CPs were hostility or opposition by mainstream oncology professionals, and lack of dialogue and engagement with them. To overcome these barriers, CPs desired engagement with oncology professionals and recognized specialist cancer NT training. For both NCPs and CPs, evidence resources, practice guidelines and practitioner support networks also emerged as potential enablers to cancer practice. Conclusions: This is the first detailed exploration of NT practitioners’ perceived barriers to working with people affected by cancer. Acquiring specialist skills and knowledge appears important to enable NCPs to start cancer work, and for CPs with these skills, the perceived barriers appear foremost in the relationship with mainstream cancer professionals. Further exploration of these themes, and other NT practitioner perspectives on working with people affected by cancer, is underway. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice, training and other resources.

Just noticeable differences in perceived image contrast with changes in displayed image size

An evaluation of the change in perceived image contrast with changes in displayed image size was carried out. This was achieved using data from four psychophysical investigations, which employed techniques to match the perceived contrast of displayed images of five different sizes. A total of twenty-four S-shape polynomial functions were created and applied to every original test image to produce images with different contrast levels. The objective contrast related to each function was evaluated from the gradient of the mid-section of the curve (gamma). The manipulation technique took into account published gamma differences that produced a just-noticeable-difference (JND) in perceived contrast. The filters were designed to achieve approximately half a JND, whilst keeping the mean image luminance unaltered. The processed images were then used as test series in a contrast matching experiment. Sixty-four natural scenes, with varying scene content acquired under various illumination conditions, were selected from a larger set captured for the purpose. Results showed that the degree of change in contrast between images of different sizes varied with scene content but was not as important as equivalent perceived changes in sharpness.

Small farmers and sustainability: institutional barriers to investment and innovation in the Malaysian palm oil industry in Sabah

The Malaysian palm oil industry is well known for the social, environmental and sustainability challenges associated with its rapid growth over the past ten years. Technologies exist to reduce the conflict between national development aims of economic uplift for the rural poor, on the one hand, and ecological conservation, on the other hand, by raising yields and incomes from areas already under cultivation. But the uptake of these technologies has been slow, particularly in the smallholder sector. In this paper we explore the societal and institutional challenges that influence the investment and innovation decisions of micro and small enterprise (MSE) palm oil smallholders in Sabah, Malaysia. Based on interviews with 38 smallholders, we identify a number of factors that reduce the smallholders' propensity to invest in more sustainable practices. We discuss why more effective practices and innovations are not being adopted using the concepts of, firstly, institutional logics to explore the internal dynamics of smallholder production systems, including attitudes to sustainability and innovation; and, secondly, institutional context to explore the pressures the smallholders face, including problems of access to land, labour, capital, knowledge and technical resources. These factors include limited access to global market information, corruption and uncertainties of legal title, weak economic status and social exclusion. In discussing these factors we seek to contribute to wider theoretical debates about the factors that block innovation and investment in business improvements in marginal regions and in marginalised groups.