Citations

Abstract Oncology Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), including Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and Clinical Pharmacists (CPs), play a vital role in delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care across the United States. Despite their widespread presence in oncology practices, APPs remain underutilized in cancer clinical research, representing a missed opportunity to expand trial access and improve patient outcomes. Clinical trials are essential to advancing oncology care, yet participation remains critically low among adult patients. Given Oncology APPs’ and CPs’ central role in cancer care delivery, their meaningful engagement in oncology clinical trial research is imperative as the standard of oncology care. This position article, with contributions from 5 professional societies, presents solutions and resources to barriers limiting APPs’ and CPs’ involvement in cancer clinical research, including gaps in education, role expectations, limited protected time, restrictive policies, insufficient financial support, and underrecognition of contributions. Integrating APPs and CPs more fully into the clinical research enterprise is essential to improving trial access, patient outcomes, closing equity gaps, and accelerating innovation in oncology care.

PURPOSE Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

Abstract Purpose Professionalism has historically been viewed as an honorable code to define core values and behaviors of physicians, but there are growing concerns that professionalism serves to control people who do not align with the majority culture of medicine. This study explored how learners, particularly those from historically marginalized groups, view the purpose of professionalism and how they experience professionalism as both an oppressive and valuable force. Method The authors conducted a qualitative study with a critical orientation. In 2021 and 2022, they interviewed fourth-year medical students and senior residents at 3 institutions about their perceptions and experiences of professionalism. After cataloguing participants’ stories, the authors combined critical theory with narrative and thematic analysis to identify mechanisms by which professionalism empowered or disempowered individuals or groups based on identities. Results Forty-nine trainees (31 medical students and 18 senior residents from multiple specialties) participated in interviews; 17 identified as a race/ethnicity underrepresented in medicine and 15 as people of color not underrepresented in medicine. Their stories, especially those of participants underrepresented in medicine, identified professionalism as an oppressive, homogenizing force that sometimes encoded racism through various mechanisms. These mechanisms included conflating differences with unprofessionalism, enforcing double standards of professionalism, and creating institutional policies that regulated appearance or hindered advocacy. Participants described deleterious consequences of professionalism on their learning and mental health. However, participants also described useful aspects of professionalism as a means of advocating for marginalized groups. Additionally, participants described how they reconceived professionalism to include their own identities and values. Conclusions Trainees, especially those from historically marginalized groups, experience professionalism as a restrictive, assimilative force while also finding value in and constructive adaptations for professionalism. Understanding both the destructive and empowering aspects of professionalism on individual and institutional levels can help improve the framing of professionalism in medical education.