Working with people affected by cancer – Phase 1 of a mixed methods exploration of practitioner perspectives in nutritional therapy

Introduction - Nutritional therapy (NT) is a bioscience-based branch of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with National Occupational Standards (NOS) and accredited training courses which include compulsory clinical training. Approximately 900 practitioners are registered with the voluntary regulator, the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), but the number of unregulated practitioners is unknown. Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide; nutrition and lifestyle factors may affect recurrence and survival rates. Many cancer patients and survivors seek individualised advice on diet and use of supplements and appropriately skilled nutritional therapy practitioners (NTP) may be well-placed to safely provide this advice. Little is known of NTPs’ perspectives on working with people affected by cancer; this study seeks to explore their views on training, use of evidence and other resources, to support the development of safe evidence-based practice in this important clinical area. Methods – An on-line anonymised questionnaire collected data from participants recruited from all UK registered NTPs. Recruitment was facilitated by the British Association for Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT). Quantitative data on practitioner characteristics, years in practice, other therapies practiced and work with cancer clients were collected. Qualitative data on types of evidence used, barriers to practice and perceived training and support needs when working with clients with cancer, were collected and analysed. SPSS was used to produce descriptive statistics. Preliminary Results – 274/888 (31%) of registered NTPs participated. 61% respondents had accredited NT qualifications of which 46% were at degree or post-graduate level. 73% (202) participants indicated they also had other higher education qualifications, including 153 (56%) at degree or above. When asked to describe their position on cancer work, 17% respondents (40/238) indicated no interest, and 35% (84/238) respondents already work with cancer clients (cancer practitioners - CP). A further 48% (114/238) respondents expressed interest in starting cancer work, and typically requested specialist training and practice guidelines to support this area of clinical practice. Cancer practitioners (CP) rated searches of peer-reviewed literature as most useful for information to support practice, whereas commercial product information was rated least useful. CPs requested engagement with mainstream medicine, more access to research evidence and professional recognition to facilitate and support work with cancer clients. A need for professional networking, mentorship and/or supervision was noted by CP and non-CP respondents, which is of interest since 81% all participants worked as sole practitioners exclusively or as part of their practice, <1% worked within the NHS. Discussion & Conclusions – This is the first detailed documentation of NTP perspectives on cancer work. A number of areas have been identified for further detailed evidence to be collected using focus groups and interviews, including detailed training needs, communication with mainstream cancer professionals, access to research evidence, and professional recognition. This work will inform and support the development of professional practice guidelines for NT and inform the development of specialist training and other resources.

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.

An integrated psychology virtual research ethics committee

Research and professional ethics are an integral part of every Psychology degree, as this is seen as a key graduate learning outcome for students leaving to become clinicians working with clients and patients. The development of these skills is embedded in teaching, but they culminate in the final year of a degree when final year students must gain formal ethical approval for their final research project. Decision as to the ethical appropriateness of research are made by a Departmental Research Ethics Committee, which considers all research project proposals submitted by staff and students within the department. One of the challenges of this practice is the scale of work involved for committee members (Doyle & Buckley, 2014) who are all faculty members, and the tracking of applications and decisions, alongside the quality assurance required to ensure that all applications are treated fairly and equally. The time involved in performing this work is often underestimated by Universities, and the variety and complexity of decisions requires extensive discussion and negotiation. Traditionally, these decisions are reached by committee discussions, however this presents logistical difficulties as it requires meetings with quorate attendance. The University of Westminster launched a virtual tool in 2014 to facilitate the management of the Research Ethics Committee, to help track the progress of applications and to allow discussions to occur and be managed virtually. The Department of Psychology adopted the tools in September 2014 to deal with all ethics applications. Here we report on how this virtual committee has affected the role and practices of a working committee that deals with over 300 applications per year, and how an online ethics procedure has facilitated an integrated developmental approach to ethical education.