A web-based intervention (RESTORE) to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: a multi-centre proof of concept randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a frequent and distressing symptom experienced after cancer treatment. RESTORE is the first web-based resource designed to enhance self-efficacy to manage CRF following curative-intent treatment. The aim of this study is to test the proof of concept and inform the design of an effectiveness trial. METHODS: A multi-centre parallel-group two-armed (1:1) exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) with qualitative process evaluation was employed in the study. Participants (≥18 years; ≤5 years post treatment with moderate to severe fatigue) were recruited and randomly assigned to RESTORE or a leaflet. Feasibility and acceptability were measured by recruitment, attrition, intervention adherence, completion of outcome measures and process evaluation. Change in self-efficacy to manage CRF was also explored. Outcome measures were completed at baseline (T0), 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2). Data were analysed using mixed-effects linear regression and directed content analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three people participated in the trial and 19 in the process evaluation. The intervention was feasible (39 % of eligible patients consented) and acceptable (attrition rate 36 %). There was evidence of higher fatigue self-efficacy at T1 in the intervention group vs comparator (mean difference 0.51 [-0.08 to 1.11]), though the difference in groups decreased by 12 weeks. Time since diagnosis influenced perceived usefulness of the intervention. Modifications were suggested. CONCLUSION: Proof of concept was achieved. The RESTORE intervention should be subject to a definitive trial with some adjustments. Provision of an effective supportive resource would empower cancer survivors to manage CRF after treatment completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67521059.

RESTORE: an exploratory trial of a web-based intervention to enhance self-management of cancer-related fatigue: findings from a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue is a distressing symptom experienced by many after cancer treatment. An exploratory randomised controlled trial was conducted to test proof of concept of RESTORE: a web-based tool to enhance self-efficacy to manage cancer-related fatigue. This paper reports findings from a qualitative process evaluation to determine feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. METHOD: Qualitative process evaluation carried out at the end of the trial to explore participants' experiences using semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of participants from both trial arms. Normalisation Process Theory informed data collection and analysis. Analysis involved directed content analysis within a Framework Approach. RESULTS: Nineteen participants took part. They understood the purpose and requirements of the trial and identified beneficial outcomes from taking part. For the majority, the work of the trial was easily accommodated into daily routines and did not require new skills. There were mixed views about the value of the information provided by RESTORE, depending on time since diagnosis and treatment. Personal factors, constraints of the intervention, and environmental context inhibited the integration and embedding of RESTORE into everyday life. Access to the intervention at an early stage in the treatment trajectory was important to effective utilisation, as were individual preferences for delivery of information. CONCLUSION: The theoretical foundations of the intervention were sound. Participants derived benefits from the intervention but barriers to implementation and integration suggest that RESTORE and the trial processes require some modification before testing in a full trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67521059 (10(th) October 2012).

Rethinking the patient: using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness.

BACKGROUND: In this article we outline Burden of Treatment Theory, a new model of the relationship between sick people, their social networks, and healthcare services. Health services face the challenge of growing populations with long-term and life-limiting conditions, they have responded to this by delegating to sick people and their networks routine work aimed at managing symptoms, and at retarding - and sometimes preventing - disease progression. This is the new proactive work of patient-hood for which patients are increasingly accountable: founded on ideas about self-care, self-empowerment, and self-actualization, and on new technologies and treatment modalities which can be shifted from the clinic into the community. These place new demands on sick people, which they may experience as burdens of treatment. DISCUSSION: As the burdens accumulate some patients are overwhelmed, and the consequences are likely to be poor healthcare outcomes for individual patients, increasing strain on caregivers, and rising demand and costs of healthcare services. In the face of these challenges we need to better understand the resources that patients draw upon as they respond to the demands of both burdens of illness and burdens of treatment, and the ways that resources interact with healthcare utilization. SUMMARY: Burden of Treatment Theory is oriented to understanding how capacity for action interacts with the work that stems from healthcare. Burden of Treatment Theory is a structural model that focuses on the work that patients and their networks do. It thus helps us understand variations in healthcare utilization and adherence in different healthcare settings and clinical contexts.

Lessons learnt recruiting to a multi-site UK cohort study to explore recovery of health and well-being after colorectal cancer (CREW study).

BACKGROUND: The UK leads the world in recruitment of patients to cancer clinical trials, with a six-fold increase in recruitment during 2001-2010. However, there are large variations across cancer centres. This paper details recruitment to a large multi-centre prospective cohort study and discusses lessons learnt to enhance recruitment. METHODS: During CREW (ColoREctal Wellbeing) cohort study set up and recruitment, data were systematically collected on all centres that applied to participate, time from study approval to first participant recruited and the percentage of eligible patients recruited into the study. RESULTS: 30 participating NHS cancer centres were selected through an open competition via the cancer networks. Time from study approval to first participant recruited took a median 124 days (min 53, max 290). Of 1350 eligible people in the study time frame, 78% (n = 1056) were recruited into the study, varying from 30-100% eligible across centres. Recruitment of 1056 participants took 17 months. CONCLUSION: In partnership with the National Cancer Research Network, this successful study prioritised relationship building and education. Key points for effective recruitment: pre-screening and selection of centres; nurses as PIs; attendance at study days; frequent communication and a reduced level of consent to enhance uptake amongst underrepresented groups.

Translational framework for implementation evaluation and research: a normalisation process theory coding manual for qualitative research and instrument development.

BACKGROUND: Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) is frequently used to inform qualitative research that aims to explain and evaluate processes that shape late-stage translation of innovations in the organisation and delivery of healthcare. A coding manual for qualitative researchers using NPT will facilitate transparent data analysis processes and will also reduce the cognitive and practical burden on researchers. OBJECTIVES: (a) To simplify the theory for the user. (b) To describe the purposes, methods of development, and potential application of a coding manual that translates normalisation process theory (NPT) into an easily usable framework for qualitative analysis. (c) To present an NPT coding manual that is ready for use. METHOD: Qualitative content analysis of papers and chapters that developed normalisation process theory, selection and structuring of theory constructs, and testing constructs against interview data and published empirical studies using NPT. RESULTS: A coding manual for NPT was developed. It consists of 12 primary NPT constructs and conforms to the Context-Mechanism-Outcome configuration of realist evaluation studies. Contexts are defined as settings in which implementation work is done, in which strategic intentions, adaptive execution, negotiating capability, and reframing organisational logics are enacted. Mechanisms are defined as the work that people do when they participate in implementation processes and include coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Outcomes are defined as effects that make visible how things change as implementation processes proceed and include intervention mobilisation, normative restructuring, relational restructuring, and sustainment. CONCLUSION: The coding manual is ready to use and performs three important tasks. It consolidates several iterations of theory development, makes the application of NPT simpler for the user, and links NPT constructs to realist evaluation methods. The coding manual forms the core of a translational framework for implementation research and evaluation.

Translational framework for implementation evaluation and research: Protocol for a qualitative systematic review of studies informed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies mechanisms that have been demonstrated to play an important role in implementation processes. It is now widely used to inform feasibility, process evaluation, and implementation studies in healthcare and other areas of work. This qualitative synthesis of NPT studies aims to better understand how NPT explains observed and reported implementation processes, and to explore the ways in which its constructs explain the implementability, enacting and sustainment of complex healthcare interventions. Methods: We will systematically search Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases and use the Google Scholar search engine for citations of key papers in which NPT was developed. This will identify English language peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals reporting (a) primary qualitative or mixed methods studies; or, (b) qualitative or mixed methods evidence syntheses in which NPT was the primary analytic framework. Studies may be conducted in any healthcare setting, published between June 2006 and 31 December 2021. We will perform a qualitative synthesis of included studies using two parallel methods: (i) directed content analysis based on an already developed coding manual; and (ii) unsupervised textual analysis using Leximancer® topic modelling software. Other: We will disseminate results of the review using peer reviewed publications, conference and seminar presentations, and social media (Facebook and Twitter) channels. The primary source of funding is the National Institute for Health Research ARC North Thames. No human subjects or personal data are involved and no ethical issues are anticipated.

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Pre-Surgery Depression and Confidence to Manage Problems Predict Recovery Trajectories of Health and Wellbeing in the First Two Years following Colorectal Cancer: Results from the CREW Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: This paper identifies predictors of recovery trajectories of quality of life (QoL), health status and personal wellbeing in the two years following colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: 872 adults receiving curative intent surgery during November 2010 to March 2012. Questionnaires at baseline, 3, 9, 15, 24 months post-surgery assessed QoL, health status, wellbeing, confidence to manage illness-related problems (self-efficacy), social support, co-morbidities, socio-demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics. Group-based trajectory analyses identified distinct trajectories and predictors for QoL, health status and wellbeing. RESULTS: Four recovery trajectories were identified for each outcome. Groups 1 and 2 fared consistently well (scores above/within normal range); 70.5% of participants for QoL, 33.3% health status, 77.6% wellbeing. Group 3 had some problems (24.2% QoL, 59.3% health, 18.2% wellbeing); Group 4 fared consistently poorly (5.3% QoL, 7.4% health, 4.2% wellbeing). Higher pre-surgery depression and lower self-efficacy were significantly associated with poorer trajectories for all three outcomes after adjusting for other important predictors including disease characteristics, stoma, anxiety and social support. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial factors including self-efficacy and depression before surgery predict recovery trajectories in QoL, health status and wellbeing following colorectal cancer treatment independent of treatment or disease characteristics. This has significant implications for colorectal cancer management as appropriate support may be improved by early intervention resulting in more positive recovery experiences.

RESTORE: an exploratory trial of an online intervention to enhance self-efficacy to manage problems associated with cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are over 25 million people worldwide living with or beyond cancer and this number is increasing. Cancer survivors face a range of problems following primary treatment. One of the most frequently reported and distressing symptoms experienced by cancer survivors is fatigue. There is growing support for survivors who are experiencing problems after cancer treatment to engage in supported self-management. To date there is some evidence of effective interventions to manage fatigue in this population; however, to our knowledge there are no online resources that draw on this information to support self-management of fatigue. This paper describes the protocol for an exploratory randomized controlled trial of an online intervention to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue after primary cancer treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a parallel-group two-armed (1:1) exploratory randomized controlled trial including 125 cancer survivors experiencing fatigue (scoring ≥4 on a unidimensional 11-point numeric rating scale for fatigue intensity) within five years of primary treatment completion with curative intent. Participants will be recruited from 13 NHS Trusts across the UK and randomized to either the online intervention (RESTORE), or a leaflet comparator (Macmillan Cancer Backup, Coping with Fatigue). The primary outcome is a change in Perceived Self-Efficacy for Fatigue Self-Management (as measured by the Perceived Self-Efficacy for Fatigue Self-Management Instrument). Secondary outcomes include impact on perception and experience of fatigue (measured by the Brief Fatigue Inventory), and quality of life (measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General and the Personal Wellbeing Index). Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, 6 weeks (completion of intervention), and 3 months. Process evaluation (including telephone interviews with recruiting staff and participants) will determine acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. DISCUSSION: Data from this trial will be used to refine the intervention and contribute to the design of an effectiveness trial. This intervention will be expanded to address other cancer-related problems important to cancer survivors following primary cancer treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67521059.