The impact of a regionally based translational cancer research collaborative in Australia using the FAIT methodology.

BACKGROUND: Translating research, achieving impact, and assessing impact are important aspirations for all research collaboratives but can prove challenging. The Hunter Cancer Research Alliance (HCRA) was funded from 2014 to 2021 to enhance capacity and productivity in cancer research in a regional centre in Australia. This study aimed to assess the impact and benefit of the HCRA to help inform future research investments of this type. METHOD: The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) was selected as the preferred methodology. FAIT incorporates three validated methodologies for assessing impact: 1) Modified Payback; 2) Economic Analysis; and 3) Narrative overview and case studies. All three FAIT methods are underpinned by a Program Logic Model. Data were collected from HCRA and the University of Newcastle administrative records, directly from HCRA members, and website searches. RESULTS: In addition to advancing knowledge and providing capacity building support to members via grants, fellowships, scholarships, training, events and targeted translation support, key impacts of HCRA-member research teams included: (i) the establishment of a regional biobank that has distributed over 13,600 samples and became largely self-sustaining; (ii) conservatively leveraging $43.8 M (s.a.$20.5 M - $160.5 M) in funding and support from the initial $9.7 M investment; (iii) contributing to clinical practice guidelines and securing a patent for identification of stem cells for endometrial cell regeneration; (iv) shifting the treatment paradigm for all tumour types that rely on nerve cell innervation, (v) development and implementation of the world's first real-time patient treatment verification system (Watchdog); (vi) inventing the effective 'EAT' psychological intervention to improve nutrition and outcomes in people experiencing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer; (vi) developing effective interventions to reduce smoking rates among priority groups, currently being rolled out to disadvantaged populations in NSW; and (vii) establishing a Consumer Advisory Panel and Consumer Engagement Committee to increase consumer involvement in research. CONCLUSION: Using FAIT methodology, we have demonstrated the significant impact and downstream benefits that can be achieved by the provision of infrastructure-type funding to regional and rural research collaboratives to help address inequities in research activity and health outcomes and demonstrates a positive return on investment.

Assessing the appropriateness of prevention and management of venous thromboembolism in Australia: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The prevention and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is often at variance with guidelines. The CareTrack Australia (CTA) study reported that appropriate care (in line with evidence-based or consensus-based guidelines) is being provided for VTE at just over half of eligible encounters. The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the detailed CTA findings for VTE as a baseline for compliance with guidelines at a population level. SETTING: The setting was 27 hospitals in 2 states of Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of participants designed to be representative of the Australian population was recruited. Participants who had been admitted overnight during 2009 and/or 2010 were eligible. Of the 1154 CTA participants, 481(42%) were admitted overnight to hospital at least once, comprising 751 admissions. There were 279 females (58%), and the mean age was 64 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary measure was compliance with indicators of appropriate care for VTE. The indicators were extracted from Australian VTE clinical practice guidelines and ratified by experts. Participants' medical records from 2009 to 2010 were analysed for compliance with 38 VTE indicators. RESULTS: Of the 35,145 CTA encounters, 1078 (3%) were eligible for scoring against VTE indicators. There were 2-84 eligible encounters per indicator at 27 hospitals. Overall compliance with indicators for VTE was 51%, and ranged from 34% to 64% for aggregated sets of indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The prevention and management of VTE was appropriate for only half of the at-risk patients in our sample; this provides a baseline for tracking progress nationally. There is a need for national and, ideally, international agreement on clinical standards, indicators and tools to guide, document and monitor care for VTE, and for measures to increase their uptake, particularly where deficiencies have been identified.

General practitioner referral patterns for women with gynaecological symptoms: a randomised incomplete block study design.

OBJECTIVE: To describe why, when and to whom general practitioners refer women with symptoms possibly attributable to cervical, endometrial or ovarian cancers, and to identify patient and GP factors that predict referral to either a gynaecologist or a gynaecological oncologist. DESIGN AND SETTING: A national survey of GPs between 1 April and 31 August 2009 using a randomised incomplete block design based on case vignettes, and using a self-completed postal or online questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of GPs, stratified by location and randomly selected from a database of GPs maintained by the Australasian Medical Publishing Company. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of vignettes that were deemed to reflect a high probability of cancer being referred; and the patient and clinician factors that were the strongest predictors of referral. RESULTS: Of the 3082 GPs who were selected for participation, 1402 responded, giving a response rate of 45.5%. Overall, for vignettes identified as describing women with a high probability of cancer, 75% were referred by metropolitan GPs and 73% by rural practitioners. Metropolitan GPs were significantly more likely to refer women in scenarios indicative of endometrial cancer than rural GPs. For all three cancers, GPs were significantly more likely to refer a patient to a gynaecologist (between 70.8% and 95.4%) than a gynaecological oncologist. Metropolitan GPs had significantly greater access to both private and public gynaecological oncologists than their rural counterparts. Referral rates were higher for ovarian and cervical cancer (83% and 80%, respectively) and lower for endometrial cancer (68%). For all three cancers, patient factors were stronger predictors of referral than the demographic factors of participating GPs. CONCLUSION: There appears to be significant variation in referral practices among GPs and this variation is greater for endometrial cancer, for which there are currently no evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in Australia. There is a need for further research into understanding the basis of these differences, including a review of the existing guidelines for ovarian and cervical cancer and the development of guidelines for endometrial cancer.