What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to co-adapt an evaluation framework to effectively assess the ISCTP’s impact on cancer care education.

February 14, 2026Open Access

Co-adapting the evaluation strategy for a patient-centered interprofessional training program in cancer care: a modified mixed-methods Delphi study

Key Points

The study aims to co-adapt an evaluation framework to effectively assess the ISCTP’s impact on cancer care education.
Conducted a modified Delphi study with three rounds involving cancer care experts and patient representatives.
Collected responses from 61 participants through open-ended questions in the first round.
Used thematic analysis to identify and prioritize evaluation themes across two subsequent rounds.
Identified twelve key evaluation statements prioritized by participants.
Defined evaluation priorities related to participant satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and engagement.
Emphasized the importance of culturally sensitive evaluation methods and patient-centered outcomes.

Abstract

Cancer care requires collaboration across specialties, making interprofessional education essential. The INTERACT-EUROPE 100 project promotes interprofessional cancer care by implementing the Inter-Specialty Cancer Training Program (ISCTP) on a larger scale across Europe. This study aimed to co-adapt a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess the impact of the ISCTP, with the broader goal of informing evaluation practices in other educational programs in cancer care. A modified three-round Delphi study was conducted involving cancer care experts and patient representatives. In the first round, 61 participants responded to three open-ended questions in written form to gather their perspectives on key aspects to consider when evaluating the ISCTP. Thematic analysis of these responses yielded twelve overarching statements that were subsequently prioritized by 46 participants in the second round using a ranking task. The third and final round consisted of two cross-national online focus group discussions (n = 15), which allowed for the contextualization of these findings. ISCTP evaluation priorities were defined at various levels: assessing program satisfaction through feedback on content relevance, interactivity (e.g., collaborative exercises), and participant engagement through attendance and active participation. Additionally, emphasis was placed on evaluating both declarative knowledge acquisition and the application of procedural knowledge, as well as competence assessment using culturally sensitive rubrics. Overall, findings underscore the need to measure participant performance through satisfaction, behavioral changes, and patient-centered outcomes to successfully implement existing evaluation frameworks. Having incorporated interest-holder perspectives, these findings provide a robust and patient-centered foundation for a comprehensive ISCTP evaluation.

Bookmark

View Full Paper