Identifying the Needs of Health Care Providers in Advanced First-Line Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Mixed-Methods Research.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic treatments for metastatic or unresectable renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are rapidly evolving. This study aimed at investigating challenges in the care of mRCC to inform future educational interventions for health care providers (HCPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sequential mixed-method design consisted of a qualitative phase (semistructured interviews) followed by a quantitative phase (online surveys). Participants included US-based medical oncologists, nephrologists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed. Survey data was descriptively and inferentially analyzed. RESULTS: Forty interviews and 265 surveys were completed. Analysis revealed four challenges in the care of mRCC patients. A challenge in staying current with emerging evidence and treatment recommendations was found with 33% of surveyed HCPs reporting suboptimal skills interpreting published evidence on the efficacy and safety of emerging agents. A challenge weighing patient health and preferences in treatment decisions was found, especially among HCPs with 3 to 10 years of practice (37%) who reported suboptimal skills in assessing patients' tolerance to side effects. Promoting a collaborative care approach to the management of immune-related adverse events was a challenge, specifically related to barriers involving nephrologists (eg, diverging treatment goals). Breakdowns in communication were reported (46% of HCPs), especially in the monitoring of side effects and treatment adherence. CONCLUSION: This study revealed key challenges faced by HCPs when treating and managing patients with mRCC across multiple providers. Future interventions (eg, community of practice) should aim to address the identified gaps and promote a team-based approach to care that strengthens the complementary competencies of HCPs involved.

Gaps and barriers in the implementation and functioning of antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results from an educational and behavioural mixed methods needs assessment in France, the United States, Mexico and India.

Background: Evidence shows limited adherence to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles. Objectives: To identify educational gaps and systemic barriers obstructing adherence to AMS principles. Methods: A mixed-methods study combining a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews (January-February 2021) and inferential analysis of quantitative surveys (May-June 2021) was conducted. Participants from France, the USA, Mexico and India were purposively sampled from online panels of healthcare professionals to include infectious disease physicians, infection control specialists, clinical microbiologists, pharmacologists or pharmacists expected to apply AMS principles in their practice setting (e.g. clinic, academic-affiliated or community-based hospital). A gap analysis framework guided this study. Results: The final sample included 383 participants (n = 33 interviews; n = 350 surveys). Mixed-methods findings indicated suboptimal knowledge and skills amongst participants to facilitate personal and collective application of AMS principles. Survey data indicated a gap in ideal versus current knowledge of AMS protocols, especially amongst pharmacologists (Δ0.95/4.00, P < 0.001). Gaps in ideal versus current skill levels were also measured and were highest amongst infectious control specialists (Δ1.15/4.00, P < 0.001), for convincing hospital executives to allocate resources to AMS programmes. Already existing systemic barriers (e.g. insufficient dedicated time/funding/training) were perceived as being aggravated during the COVID-19 pandemic (72% of survey participants agreed). Reported gaps were highest in India and France. Conclusions: The educational needs of professionals and countries included in this study can inform future continuous professional development activities in AMS. Additional funding should be considered to address perceived systemic barriers. Local assessments are warranted to validate results and suitability of interventions.

Barriers to shared decision-making with women of reproductive age affected by a chronic inflammatory disease: a mixed-methods needs assessment of dermatologists and rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVES: The main study objective was to identify challenges and barriers experienced by dermatologists and rheumatologists when engaging women of reproductive age in shared decision-making (SDM) related to treatment and management of chronic inflammatory disease (CID) before, during and after pregnancy. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study was conducted, employing (1) semistructured interviews, (2) an online survey and (3) triangulation of findings. PARTICIPANTS: 524 dermatologists and rheumatologists entered the study; 495 completed it; 388 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Participants were included if actively practising in Germany (GER), the UK or the USA; had a minimum 5% caseload of female patients of reproductive age with either axial spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis or rheumatoid arthritis; and had experience prescribing biologics. RESULTS: 48 interviews and 340 surveys were analysed. Interviews underscored dermatologists and rheumatologists' suboptimal integration of SDM in clinical practice. In the survey, 90% (n=305) did not know about SDM models. A perceived lack of competency counselling patients on pregnancy and family planning was also identified during interviews. Among the survey sample, 44% (n=150) of specialists agreed they preferred leaving pregnancy-related discussions to obstetricians and/or gynaecologists and 57% (n=189) reported having suboptimal skills discussing contraceptive methods with patients. Another finding that emerged from interviews was the perception that all biologics are strictly contraindicated during pregnancy. Suboptimal knowledge was noted among 57% (n=95) of dermatologists and 48% (n=83) of rheumatologists surveyed in that regard, with a statistically significant difference by country among dermatologists (GER: 42% vs UK: 71% vs USA: 57%, p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified low levels of knowledge, skill and confidence, as well as attitudinal issues, that explain why SDM is not fully integrated in dermatology and rheumatology clinical practice. Blended-learning interventions are recommended to assist CID specialists in developing effective communication and patient engagement competencies.