CONJ • RCSIO Summer/Été 2014 137
For this editorial, I will
continue to focus on the
notion of “changes”, as I have
in the past few issues. In par-
ticular, the changes I want to
highlight are wtih regard to
the journal itself.
I have been in conver-
sation with the editorial board for the
Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal, as well
as with its reviewers and some of its authors.
Additionally, we have just reviewed responses
from the recent member survey regarding
views and suggestions for the journal and dis-
cussed these with the board of the Canadian
Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO). I
will highlight the overall views reflected in the
survey results and the various discussions, as
they unfolded. The perspectives and conversa-
tions were very consistent. Also, I will review
some of the changes we are trying in this issue
of the journal, adding to those we tried in the
last couple of issues.
First of all, a CANO membership survey
was issued in April with the aim of seeking
input to build a new communications strat-
egy for CANO/ACIO. As the journal is one
of the vehicles we use to communicate with
members about the association and about
oncology nursing, we took the opportunity
to seek perspectives about what the jour-
nal is doing well and where there is room
for improvement or change. It is espe-
cially important for us to anticipate what
may unfold as more communications occur
through electronic and social media.
The survey was open to all members for
about four weeks. We had a total of 64 indi-
viduals respond to the survey items. Our
Director-at-Large for Communications, Lorna
Roe, will be working through the data con-
cerning all the other routes of communica-
tion used by the association and building a
revised communication strategy. I will focus
on the results regarding the journal.
The 64 respondents were from across the
country, age groups, and practice settings.
Eighty-one per cent read the journal and 71%
turned to it for association news.
Overall, the respondents indicated the fol-
lowing characteristics were strengths of the
journal: it is Canadian, specific to oncology
nursing, bilingual, credible, of quality, and
has a diversity of topics. Our peer review pro-
cess was acknowledged as timely and helpful
for the feedback that it provides for authors.
Overall, the areas where respondents
thought there could be improvements
included the limited readership (primarily
members of CANO), its limited profile as a
journal, the relevance of topics for some audi-
ences, no impact factor (this is a rating given
to journals that indicates the influence it has
in the scientific or academic world), the “look”
of journal, and the accessibility by others
in the world to the articles in the journal.
Essentially, respondents thought the journal
had a great deal to offer, but it needed a wider
circulation and profile beyond our borders.
The respondents offered a wide range of
suggestions for consideration including, for
example, increasing the number of nurses
writing for the journal, enlarging the number
of articles that provide reviews or summaries
of current knowledge on topics ranging from
prevention through treatment and follow-up
care, including shorter pieces with direct
practice implication, include more direct
clinical skills-related articles, and share what
is happening in oncology nursing practice
and cancer centres across Canada. A num-
ber of respondents wanted more focus on, or
help with translating evidence for practice.
One of the most significant perspectives
for me to see was the number of responses
indicating that we need to think about going to
an online format. Although 36% of the respon-
dents indicated they would personally prefer
to continue having a printed hard copy of the
journal, they offered additional comments
about the need to change in the near future
and be ready for nurses who are more used
to accessing information via the Internet. All
but two of the remaining respondents offered
comments in support of moving to an online
format. Many offered comments about how
such a move could enhance accessibility, lower
costs, and be more environmentally friendly.
The results were discussed with the
CANO Board and will now be taken up by the
CONJ Editorial Board and given due consid-
eration. We will keep you informed about the
progress we make.
In the meantime, we will continue to
try some of the changes started in the last
few issues of the journal. I do hope you
read the new types of submissions we
offered: President’s Message, International
Perspectives, Brief Communications, and
Resource Reviews. You will see in this cur-
rent issue we have once again offered some
of these columns. In addition, we have also
added other new types of offerings.
We have an article submission from
Ristovski-Slijepcevic and Bell, two social scien-
tist colleagues, who share their perspectives on
cancer survivorship. Writing in response to this
article, we have three oncology nurses who are
currently engaged in graduate study—Truant,
Kohli and Stephens. We hope these two articles,
when taken together, will stimulate your think-
ing about the ideas surrounding cancer survi-
vorship, current perspectives we hold about
it, and how those perspectives inform our lan-
guage, interactions, and program approaches.
We also hope it will stimulate some interesting
dialogue across the country.
Another new submission is the Ask an
Expert column. For this issue we involved
a bioethicist as the expert. Blair Henry has
written in response to a clinical query raised
by a clinical trials nurse. I think that the
information provided would be of benefit to
all nurses in practice when they experience
a concern about an individual’s cognitive
capacity. In the future, we hope this column
will generate answers for some of the prac-
tical issues you are facing in your practice.
I hope you will send in questions you might
have and we can find an appropriate expert
to respond to your query. Just send your
Finally, our third new type of submis-
sion this issue is entitled A Nurse to Know.
The aim of this column is to profile oncology
nurses from across Canada and share their
perspectives concerning their practice, lead-
ership, motivations, career pathways, and per-
sonal insights. Oncology nursing offers such a
wealth of opportunities, innovations, and cre-
ative solutions to commonly experienced chal-
lenges, we thought this type of column could
provide a chance to learn from nursing col-
leagues. I would love to hear from you about
nurses in your jurisdiction who are “a nurse
to know”. Just send me (marg.i.fitch@gmail.
com) their contact information (with their per-
mission) and I will follow up with them.
In closing, I encourage you to write to me
about the changes we have been trying in the
journal. I would love to hear from you and
learn about your perspectives regarding the
directions we are taking. If you have sugges-
tions you want to make, or notes of encour-
agement you would like to share, I would
like to learn about those, as well. I also hope
that you see opportunities to contribute to
the journal in one or more of the many types
of columns or articles with which we are
working. I look forward to hearing from you
Margaret Fitch, RN, PhD
Editor in Chief
Correction
In the Spring 2014 issue of CONJ, Volume 24, No. 2, the article on page
102, Survey about the use of scalp cooling to prevent alopecia during
breast cancer chemotherapy treatment in Canada, was accompanied by the
wrong photo for author Louise Provencher. The CONJ apologizes to Louise
Provencher and our readers for the error and any confusion or inconve-
nience it may have caused. This is the correct photo of Louise Provencher.
Editorial