Qualitative research literacy among pediatric oncology providers: institutional capacity, barriers, and implications for patient-centered cancer care in a middle-income setting.
A cross-sectional survey of 137 pediatric oncology providers at a Jordanian cancer center found broad recognition of qualitative research's importance but low objective knowledge, time and training barriers, and strong interest in workshops, online courses, and future participation.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
A cross-sectional survey of 137 pediatric oncology providers at a Jordanian cancer center found broad recognition of qualitative research's importance but low objective knowledge, time and training barriers, and strong interest in workshops, online courses, and future participation.
Research significance
The evidence identifies a modifiable institutional literacy and training gap rather than a cancer treatment effect; it is reasonable but untested to infer that targeted education and mentorship could improve the use of patient and caregiver evidence in service design and, indirectly, patient-centered care.
Source abstract
BACKGROUND: Qualitative research plays a critical role in pediatric oncology by highlighting patient and caregiver experiences, psychosocial challenges, and contextual barriers to care. The ability of oncology teams to interpret and engage with qualitative evidence may influence the integration of patient-centered insights into clinical practice and service improvement. However, institutional capacity for qualitative research engagement among interdisciplinary pediatric oncology providers in low- and middle-income settings remains underexplored. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare providers working in the Department of Pediatrics at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan. A structured 29-item questionnaire was used to assess prior exposure to qualitative research, knowledge of qualitative concepts, perceived barriers to participation, confidence levels, and preferred training methods. Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted to explore associations between knowledge, training exposure, and professional characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 137 providers participated, mainly nurses (74.4%) and female staff (83.2%), mirroring the workforce composition. While 98.4% recognized the importance of qualitative research in pediatric oncology, objective knowledge scores revealed significant gaps (mean score 39.8%). Providers with postgraduate education and prior research experience had significantly higher knowledge levels (p<0.001). Frequently reported barriers to engagement included limited time (58.4%) and inadequate training (55.4%). Despite these challenges, 96.6% expressed interest in future involvement with qualitative research, preferred structured workshops (64.2%), and online courses (36.5%). CONCLUSION: Although pediatric oncology providers acknowledged the value of qualitative research in understanding patient and family experiences, institutional capacity to engage with and apply qualitative methodologies remains limited. Targeted educational initiatives and structured mentorship models could enhance qualitative research literacy and improve the integration of patient-centered insights into oncology care delivery, particularly in resource-limited settings.