A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies. METHODS: A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

Virtual Cancer Care Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient and Staff Perspectives and Recommendations.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual cancer care (VC); however, work is needed to inform long-term adoption. We evaluated patient and staff experiences with VC at a large urban, tertiary cancer center to inform recommendations for postpandemic sustainment. METHODS: All physicians who had provided VC during the pandemic and all patients who had a valid e-mail address on file and at least one visit to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, in the preceding year were invited to complete a survey. Interviews and focus groups with patients and staff across the cancer center were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis and triangulated with survey findings. RESULTS: Response rates for patients and physicians were 15% (2,343 of 15,169) and 41% (100 of 246), respectively. A greater proportion of patients than physicians were satisfied with VC (80.1 v 53.4%; P < .01). In addition, fewer patients than physicians felt that virtual visits were worse than those conducted in person (28.0 v 43.4%; P < .01) and that telephone and video visits negatively affected the human interaction that they valued (59.8% v 82.0%; P < .01). Major barriers to VC for patients were respect for care preferences and personal boundaries, accessibility, and equitable access. For staff, major barriers included a lack of role clarity, dedicated resources (space and technology), integration of nursing and allied health, support (administrative, clinical, and technical), and guidance on appropriateness of use. CONCLUSION: Patient and staff perceptions and barriers to virtual care are different. Moving forward, we need to pay attention to both staff and patient experiences with virtual care since this will have major implications for long-term adoption into clinical practice.

Matched and moving: exploring daily social support among women partnered for exercise after a breast cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Exercise and social support are non-pharmacological strategies that improve health and wellbeing in women treated for breast cancer (WTBC). However, strategies to facilitate support and exercise in WTBC are typically resource intensive. The purpose of this study was to examine whether various forms of social support received from a matched peer were associated with increased exercise among WTBC. METHODS: A daily diary study was conducted to examine naturally occurring social support as it relates to daily exercise behavior. Forty-six WTBC were matched (23 pairs) and completed pre-screening survey assessing eligibility and baseline levels of exercise. Participants were given Fitbit devices to track physical activity behavior and completed daily surveys across 3 weeks assessing perceptions of exercise-related social support at fixed times at the end of each day. RESULTS: Mixed models accounting for day of study, baseline support, and baseline exercise levels revealed that higher levels of daily exercise-related tangible social support were associated with more daily steps (b = 506, SE = 143) and more light physical activity (LPA) minutes (b = 7.01, SE = 3.15). Informational social support was associated with higher moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) minutes (b = 3.18, SE = 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, peer matching programs aimed at increasing exercise-related social support among WTBC might encourage exercise behaviors, especially among women who share exercise-specific information (e.g., benefits, type, activities).

Connecting breast cancer survivors for exercise: protocol for a two-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peer-based exercise interventions that cultivate new opportunities for support with a fellow cancer survivor may result in increased exercise volume. It is not clear whether adding qualified exercise professional (QEP) support to peer-based interventions improves health outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether breast cancer survivor (BCS) dyads who receive 10 weekly sessions of virtually delivered QEP support have improved outcomes compared to BCS dyads who do not receive QEP support. METHODS: Participants Adult BCS with medical clearance for exercise, who have an internet-connected device, and currently engage in < 150 min of moderate-intensity exercise per week. Intervention BCS will be matched using evidence-based criteria. The intervention group will receive dyadic exercise information sessions and a program tailored by a QEP for 10 weeks (intervention period) and have access to the QEP for an additional 4 weeks (tapering period). The control will not receive any QEP support. Outcomes The primary outcome is post-intervention self-reported exercise volume. Secondary outcomes include device-assessed exercise volume (i.e., Fitbit), social support, and health-related quality of life. Randomization 108 participants, matched in dyads, will be randomized 1:1 to the MatchQEP or Match groups using a web-based scheme. Statistical analysis Outcomes will be measured at baseline, post-intervention, post-tapering, and at 12 weeks post-intervention follow-up. DISCUSSION: The findings from this RCT will determine if matched BCS dyads who receive 10 weeks of virtually delivered QEP support have higher levels of self-report and device-measured exercise, social support, and health related quality of life compared to matched dyads without QEP-delivered exercise guidance. To our knowledge this will be the first study to assess the combined effect of peer- and QEP support on exercise volume. Project findings will inform and optimize intervention methods aimed to increase exercise among BCS through accessible exercise supports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (study identifier: NCT04771975, protocol Version Number: 2, date: July 22, 2021).

Defining sustainability in practice: views from implementing real-world innovations in health care.

BACKGROUND: One of the key conceptual challenges in advancing our understanding of how to more effectively sustain innovations in health care is the lack of clarity and agreement on what sustainability actually means. Several reviews have helped synthesize and clarify how researchers conceptualize and operationalize sustainability. In this study, we sought to identify how individuals who implement and/or sustain evidence-informed innovations in health care define sustainability. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with implementation leaders and relevant staff involved in the implementation of evidence-based innovations relevant to cancer survivorship care (n = 27). An inductive approach, using constant comparative analysis, was used for analysis of interview transcripts and field notes. RESULTS: Participants described sustainability as an ongoing and dynamic process that incorporates three key concepts and four important conditions. The key concepts were: (1) continued capacity to deliver the innovation, (2) continued delivery of the innovation, and (3) continued receipt of benefits. The key conditions related to (2) and (3), and included: (2a) innovations must continue in the absence of the champion or person/team who introduced it and (3a) adaptation is critical to ensuring relevancy and fit, and thus to delivering the intended benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Participants provided a nuanced view of sustainability, with both continued delivery and continued benefits only relevant under certain conditions. The findings reveal the interconnected elements of what sustainability means in practice, providing a unique and important perspective to the academic literature.

Practice patterns and perceptions of survivorship care in Canadian genitourinary oncology: A multidisciplinary perspective.

INTRODUCTION: There is little knowledge of survivorship care specific to genitourinary (GU) cancers. To improve care delivery to this patient population, we need to clearly define physician perceptions of survivorship care. We therefore conducted a study to determine the challenges to GU cancer survivorship care in Canada. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was e-mailed to physicians treating GU cancers in Canada, including urologists, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. Five domains were assessed: demography, current post-cancer treatment care, perspectives on barriers to survivorship care, accessibility to survivorship resources, and perspectives about advocacy groups. RESULTS: There were 306 responses, with 260 eligible for study. A total of 82% of physicians involve primary care practitioners (PCPs) at some point in survivorship care. Most physicians provide some form of written follow-up plan to PCPs. However, only 25% provided lifestyle recommendations and 53% included persistent and late effects of therapy. Lack of time or resources dedicated to survivorship care was the most commonly reported barrier. There was variation in accessibility to survivorship support programs among different subspecialties and regions. Advocacy groups generally were underutilized, particularly in testis cancer. Low response rate and the potential response bias are the main limitations of this survey. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the first study to address the challenges of GU cancer survivorship care in Canada. The barriers and accessibility of survivorship care quoted in this survey may be used to improve care for this group of patients. Underutilization of advocacy groups may stimulate the advocacy groups and institutions to address its causes and solutions.