Browsing by Author "Knafl, Kathleen A."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Investigators’ Successful Strategies for Working with Institutional Review Boards
    (2013) Cartwright, Juliana C.; Hickman, Susan E.; Nelson, Christine A.; Knafl, Kathleen A.
    This study was designed to identify successful strategies used by investigators for working with their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in conducting human subjects research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 investigators representing nursing, medicine, and social work. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Investigators emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating positive relationships with IRB staff and members, and managing bureaucracy. A few used evasive measures to avoid conflict with IRBs. Few successful strategies were identified for working with multiple IRBs. Although most investigators developed successful methods for working with IRBs, further research is needed on how differences in IRB culture affect human subjects protection, and on best approaches to IRB approval of multi-site studies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Pilot Randomized Trial of Active Music Engagement Intervention Parent Delivery for Young Children With Cancer
    (Oxford University Press, 2017-03-01) Robb, Sheri L.; Haase, Joan E.; Perkins, Susan M.; Haut, Paul R.; Henley, Amanda K.; Knafl, Kathleen A.; Tong, Yan; School of Nursing
    Objectives: To examine the feasibility/acceptability of a parent-delivered Active Music Engagement (AME + P) intervention for young children with cancer and their parents. Secondary aim to explore changes in AME + P child emotional distress (facial affect) and parent emotional distress (mood; traumatic stress symptoms) relative to controls. Methods: A pilot two-group randomized trial was conducted with parents/children (ages 3-8 years) receiving AME + P ( n  =  9) or attention control ( n  =  7). Feasibility of parent delivery was assessed using a delivery checklist and child engagement; acceptability through parent interviews; preliminary outcomes at baseline, postintervention, 30 days postintervention. Results: Parent delivery was feasible, as they successfully delivered AME activities, but interviews indicated parent delivery was not acceptable to parents. Emotional distress was lower for AME + P children, but parents derived no benefit. Conclusions: Despite child benefit, findings do not support parent delivery of AME + P.