Advertisement

Caring for Family Caregivers: a Pilot Test of an Online COMFORT™ SM Communication Training Module for Undergraduate Nursing Students

  • Elaine WittenbergEmail author
  • Joy V. Goldsmith
  • Y’Esha Williams
  • Angella Lee
Article

Abstract

Family caregivers who provide care and support to cancer patients experience distress, burden, and decreased quality of life as a result of caregiving. Caregivers often turn to nurses for support; however, there is little training available for nurses on how to care for the family caregiver. Undergraduate nursing students have a high need to learn about engaging caregivers in care, but little content is presented to fulfill that need. Derived from the COMFORT™ SM communication curriculum, we developed a 1-h online educational module specifically addressing communication with family caregivers of cancer patients. Undergraduate nursing students (n = 128) from two accredited nursing programs completed a survey at the beginning and end of the module, in addition to answering unfolding response opportunities within the module. There was a significant increase in communication knowledge, attitude, and behaviors (p < .000) in post-test responses for students across all years of study. Knowledge based on responses to case study scenarios was more than 75% correct. Student open-ended responses to case-based scenarios featured in the module revealed student mastery and ability to apply module content (range, 40–56% across four scenarios). This online COMFORT™ SM communication training module is an innovative online cancer education tool for teaching about communication with family caregivers. This study finds the module effective for teaching undergraduate nursing students about communication with family and shows promise in interprofessional curricula as well.

Keywords

Cancer Communication Online nursing education Family caregivers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Deanna Sellnow of the Nicholson School of Communication and Media at the University of Central Florida for her work in the development of the course components.

Funding Information

Research reported in this publication was partially supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number R25CA174627.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Research involving human participants was approved by the University. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Lin MF, Hsu WS, Huang MC, Su YH, Crawford P, Tang CC (2017) “I couldn’t even talk to the patient”: Barriers to communicating with cancer patients as perceived by nursing students. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 26(4).  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12648 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Imran S (2013) Evaluation of communication skills training program for nursing students to develop supportive ward atmosphere during care of patients with cancer. Int J Nurs Educ 5(1):222–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrea J, Kotowski P (2017) Using standardized patients in an undergraduate nursing health assessment class. Clin Simul Nurs 13(7):309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2008) The essentials of baccalaureate education for professional nursing practice. American Association of Colleges of Nursing, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vadaparampil ST, Gwede CK, Meade C, Kelvin J, Reich RR, Reinecke J, Bowman M, Sehovic I, Quinn GP, ENRICH RESEARCH GROUP (2016) ENRICH: a promising oncology nurse training program to implement ASCO clinical practice guidelines on fertility for AYA cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 99(11):1907–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pehrson C, Banerjee SC, Manna R, Shen MJ, Hammonds S, Coyle N, Krueger CA, Maloney E, Zaider T, Bylund CL (2016) Responding empathically to patients: development, implementation, and evaluation of a communication skills training module for oncology nurses. Patient Educ Couns 99(4):610–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coyle N, Manna R, Shen M, Banerjee S, Penn S, Pehrson C, Krueger C, Maloney E, Zaider T, Bylund C (2015) Discussing death, dying, and end-of-life goals of care: a communication skills training module for oncology nurses. Clin J Oncol Nurs 19(6):697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen CH, Raingruber B (2014) Educational needs of inpatient oncology nurses in providing psychosocial care. Clin J Oncol Nurs 18(1):E1–E5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brenan M (2017) Nurses keep healthy lead as most honest, ethical profession. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/224639/nurses-keep-healthy-lead-honest-ethical-profession.aspx
  10. 10.
    Wittenberg E, Ferrell B, Goldsmith J, Ragan SL, Buller H (2018) COMFORT(SM) communication for oncology nurses: program overview and preliminary evaluation of a nationwide train-the-trainer course. Patient Educ Couns 101(3):467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cronin JA, Finn S (2017) Implementing and evaluating the COMFORT communication in palliative care curriculum for oncology nurses. J Hosp Palliat Nurs 19(2):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roth RL, Lis G, O’Connor N, Aseltyne KA (2017) Evaluation of COMFORT in strengthening perceived communication confidence of advanced practice registered nurses. J Hosp Palliat Nurs 19(1):59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldsmith J, Wittenberg E, Platt CS, Iannarino NT, Reno J (2016) Family caregiver communication in oncology: advancing a typology. Psychooncology 25(4):463–470.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wittenberg-Lyles E, Goldsmith J, Demiris G, Oliver DP, Stone J (2012) The impact of family communication patterns on hospice family caregivers: a new typology. J Hosp Palliat Nurs 14(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wittenberg-Lyles E, Goldsmith J, Oliver DP, Demiris G, Rankin A (2012) Targeting communication interventions to decrease caregiver burden. Semin Oncol Nurs 28(4):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldsmith J, Wittenberg E, Platt CS, Iannarino NT, Reno J (2016) Family caregiver communication in oncology: advancing a typology. Psychooncology 25(4):463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittenberg E, Kravits K, Goldsmith J, Ferrell B, Fujinami R (2017) Validation of a model of family caregiver communication types and related caregiver outcomes. Palliat Support Care 15(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E (1993) Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluations. J Appl Psychol 78(2):311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Connor B (2016) CARES: competencies and recommendations for educating undergraduate nursing students. Preparing nurses to care for the seriously ill and their families. J Prof Nurs 32(2):78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Campbell K, Taylor V, Douglas S (2017) Effectiveness of Online Cancer Education for Nurses and Allied Health Professionals; a Systematic Review Using Kirkpatrick Evaluation Framework. J Cancer Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1308-2
  21. 21.
    Jayasekara R, Smith C, Hall C, Rankin E, Smith M, Visvanathan V, Friebe TR (2018) The effectiveness of clinical education models for undergraduate nursing programs: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Pract 29:116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesCalifornia State University, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Communication Studies, Art & Communication Bldg 235University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  3. 3.Loewenberg College of Nursing, 3566 Community Health BuildingUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA
  4. 4.School of NursingCalifornia State University, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations