IT-Related Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a New European eHealth Solution, the Digital Survivorship Passport (SurPass Version 2.0): Semistructured Digital Survey.

BACKGROUND: To overcome knowledge gaps and optimize long-term follow-up (LTFU) care for childhood cancer survivors, the concept of the Survivorship Passport (SurPass) has been invented. Within the European PanCareSurPass project, the semiautomated and interoperable SurPass (version 2.0) will be optimized, implemented, and evaluated at 6 LTFU care centers representing 6 European countries and 3 distinct health system scenarios: (1) national electronic health information systems (EHISs) in Austria and Lithuania, (2) regional or local EHISs in Italy and Spain, and (3) cancer registries or hospital-based EHISs in Belgium and Germany. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify and describe barriers and facilitators for SurPass (version 2.0) implementation concerning semiautomation of data input, interoperability, data protection, privacy, and cybersecurity. METHODS: IT specialists from the 6 LTFU care centers participated in a semistructured digital survey focusing on IT-related barriers and facilitators to SurPass (version 2.0) implementation. We used the fit-viability model to assess the compatibility and feasibility of integrating SurPass into existing EHISs. RESULTS: In total, 13/20 (65%) invited IT specialists participated. The main barriers and facilitators in all 3 health system scenarios related to semiautomated data input and interoperability included unaligned EHIS infrastructure and the use of interoperability frameworks and international coding systems. The main barriers and facilitators related to data protection or privacy and cybersecurity included pseudonymization of personal health data and data retention. According to the fit-viability model, the first health system scenario provides the best fit for SurPass implementation, followed by the second and third scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides essential insights into the information and IT-related influencing factors that need to be considered when implementing the SurPass (version 2.0) in clinical practice. We recommend the adoption of Health Level Seven Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and data security measures such as encryption, pseudonymization, and multifactor authentication to protect personal health data where applicable. In sum, this study offers practical insights into integrating digital health solutions into existing EHISs.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of the interoperable Survivorship Passport (SurPass) v2.0 in 6 European countries: a PanCareSurPass online survey study.

PURPOSE: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care for childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) is essential to improve and maintain their quality of life. The Survivorship Passport (SurPass) is a digital tool which can aid in the delivery of adequate LTFU care. During the European PanCareSurPass (PCSP) project, the SurPass v2.0 will be implemented and evaluated at six LTFU care clinics in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Spain. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the SurPass v2.0 with regard to the care process as well as ethical, legal, social and economical aspects. METHODS: An online, semi-structured survey was distributed to 75 stakeholders (LTFU care providers, LTFU care program managers and CCSs) affiliated with one of the six centres. Barriers and facilitators identified in four centres or more were defined as main contextual factors influencing implementation of SurPass v2.0. RESULTS: Fifty-four barriers and 50 facilitators were identified. Among the main barriers were a lack of time and (financial) resources, gaps in knowledge concerning ethical and legal issues and a potential increase in health-related anxiety in CCSs upon receiving a SurPass. Main facilitators included institutions' access to electronic medical records, as well as previous experience with SurPass or similar tools. CONCLUSIONS: We provided an overview of contextual factors that may influence SurPass implementation. Solutions should be found to overcome barriers and ensure effective implementation of SurPass v2.0 into routine clinical care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These findings will be used to inform on an implementation strategy tailored for the six centres.

Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data.

PURPOSE: to quantify and compare pre- and post-surgical incontinence pad use between men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) and cancer-free controls, using population-based Austrian insurance claims data. METHODS: Men who underwent RP for treating PCa between 2013-2015 were identified. Cancer-free men ≥45 years with and without benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) were used as controls. Longitudinal data on ICD-diagnoses, type of surgery, prescribed incontinence pads, and hospitals' surgery volumes were aggregated between 2011-2018 to capture pre- and up to three years post-RP follow-up. Monthly rates of pad use were calculated and compared between RP types and cancer-free controls. RESULTS: A total of 6248 RP patients, 7158 cancer-free men with BPH, and 50,257 cancer-free men without BPH were analyzed. Comparing to pre-RP (0.03, 95%CI: 0.02-0.05), RP resulted in significantly higher rates of prescribed pads (at 3 months: 12.61, 95%CI: 11.59-13.65; 12 months: 6.71, 95%CI: 6.10-7.34; 36 months: 4.91, 95%CI: 3.76-4.62). These rates were also higher than those for cancer free controls (with BPH:0.06, 95%CI: 0.04-0.09; without BPH:0.12, 95%CI: 0.10-0.14). The rate of prescribed pads after surgery continued to decline over time and remained higher among men who underwent minimally invasive RP compared to those who underwent an open procedure. CONCLUSION: Despite progress in surgical techniques, post-RP incontinence remains a prevalent adverse event. The rate of pad usage steadily improved over the first three years post RP. The rate of patients with incontinence needing pads was higher among those who were treated minimally invasive compared to open approach.