Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods: views of community residents.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. METHODS: We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. CONCLUSIONS: Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Use of eConsult to enhance genetics service delivery in primary care: A multimethod study.

PURPOSE: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is a freely-available secure online platform connecting primary care providers (PCPs) to geneticists. Our purpose was to determine whether eConsult is effective in improving genetics service delivery in primary care. METHODS: PCP questionnaires regarding eConsult's utility, geneticists' tracking form assessments of eConsult type and appropriateness, and geneticists' interviews on implementing eConsult were carried out. RESULTS: In 2 regions of Ontario, Canada, from January 2019 to June 2020, there were 305 genetics eConsults. For 169 (55%), PCPs indicated receiving good advice for a new course of action; for 110 (36%), referral was now avoided; and for 261 (86%), eConsult was perceived valuable for patient management. Of the 131 geneticist-completed tracking forms, cancer questions were most common (68, 52%). For 63 (48%), geneticists disagreed/strongly disagreed PCPs should know the answer to the referral question. From the interview data, it was observed that geneticists described eConsult positively and suggested how it might improve access and efficiencies if integrated into genetic service delivery. Dealing with eConsults virtually could reduce waitlists, and suggesting appropriate investigations for PCPs could improve efficiencies. CONCLUSION: eConsult offers a potential solution for receiving timely genetics advice and avoiding unnecessary patient referrals, however, greater effect on access and wait times will need systematic integration into PCP and geneticist practice.

Cancer specialist perspectives on implementing an online communication system with primary care providers.

Context: The Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum (CanIMPACT) is a group of researchers, primary care providers (PCPs), cancer specialists, patients and caregivers working to improve cancer care coordination between PCPs and cancer specialists. Previous research by CanIMPACT and others has identified problems related to communication, coordination, and continuity of care. Objective: Describe findings from qualitative interviews with cancer specialists on implementation of an online communication system with PCPs. Study Design: Hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation study that included a qualitative research component and a pragmatic RCT. Setting: Ottawa Hospital Cancer Program and primary care practices in the Champlain region. Population Studied: Cancer specialists (nurses, medical and radiation oncologists, program administrators). Interviews conducted with 12 cancer specialists. Intervention: Cancer-specific adaptation of Champlain BASE™ eConsult, an online communication system for PCPs and cancer specialists called "eOncoNote". For patients receiving treatment for prostate or breast cancer, cancer specialists had an opportunity to participate in eOncoNote discussion with PCP for 4-6 months; for breast and colorectal cancer survivors, the eOncoNote discussion lasted for 1 year post discharge to the patient's PCP. Results: Cancer specialists described limited PCP involvement in cancer care while patients received active treatment, with one-way communication and notes being "sent into a vacuum". There was more communication with PCPs regarding patients with metastatic disease, comorbid conditions, after patients have completed treatment, or during palliative care. Patients and caregivers play a critical role in coordinating cancer care, helping to facilitate coordination. Lack of access to the same electronic medical record (EMR) among healthcare providers poses a barrier to cancer care coordination. eOncoNote had the potential to be useful tool but it was not used extensively. Conclusions: Accessing eOncoNote as a separate system was challenging to incorporate into the workflow, and cancer specialists highlighted the need for integration with their EMR. eOncoNote did not affect information sharing with PCPs, as there was limited uptake within primary care.

Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: • To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots. MAIN RESULTS: We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)) • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)) The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)) No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.

Perspectives of family physicians towards access to lung cancer screening for individuals living with low income - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with low income are less likely to participate in lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. Family physicians (FPs) are typically responsible for referring eligible patients to LCS; therefore, we sought to understand their perspectives on access to lung cancer screening for individuals living with low income in order to improve equity in access to LCS. METHODS: A theory-informed thematic analysis was conducted using data collected from 11 semi-structured interviews with FPs recruited from three primary care sites in downtown Toronto. Data was coded using the Systems Model of Clinical Preventative Care as a framework and interpretation was guided by the synergies of oppression analytical lens. RESULTS: Four overarching themes describe FP perspectives on access to LCS for individuals living with low income: the degree of social disadvantage that influences lung cancer risk and opportunities to access care; the clinical encounter, where there is often a mismatch between the complex health needs of low income individuals and structure of health care appointments; the need for equity-oriented health care, illustrated by the neglect of structural origins of health risk and the benefits of a trauma-informed approach; and finally, the multiprong strategies that will be needed in order to improve equity in health outcomes. CONCLUSION: An equity-oriented and interdisciplinary team based approach to care will be needed in order to improve access to LCS, and attention must be given to the upstream determinants of lung cancer in order to reduce lung cancer risk.

Integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for personalized symptom management in "real-world" oncology practices: a population-based cohort comparison study of impact on healthcare utilization.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for routine cancer distress screening is endorsed globally as a quality-care standard. However, there is little research on the integration of PROs in "real-world" oncology practices using implementation science methods. The Improving Patient Experience and Health Outcome Collaborative (iPEHOC) intervention was established at multisite disease clinics to facilitate the use of PRO data by clinicians for precision symptom care. The aim of this study was to examine if patients exposed to the intervention differed in their healthcare utilization compared with contemporaneous controls in the same time frame. METHODS: We used a PRE- and DURING-intervention population cohort comparison study design to estimate the effects of the iPEHOC intervention on the difference in difference (DID) for relative rates (RR) for emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, psychosocial oncology (PSO), palliative care visits, and prescription rates for opioids and antidepressants compared with controls. RESULTS: A small significantly lower Difference in Difference (DID) (- 0.223) in the RR for ED visits was noted for the intervention compared with controls over time (0.947, CI 0.900-0.996); and a DID (- 0.0329) for patients meeting ESAS symptom thresholds (0.927, CI 0.869-0.990). A lower DID in palliative care visits (- 0.0097), psychosocial oncology visits (- 0.0248), antidepressant prescriptions (- 0.0260) and an increase in opioid prescriptions (0.0456) in the exposed population compared with controls was also noted. A similar pattern was shown for ESAS as a secondary exposure variable. CONCLUSION: Facilitating uptake of PROs data may impact healthcare utilization but requires examination in larger scale "real-world" trials.

A method to audit and score implementation of knowledge translation (KT) interventions in large health regions - an observational pilot study using rectal cancer surgery in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Across Ontario, since the year 2006 various knowledge translation (KT) interventions designed to improve the quality of rectal cancer surgery have been implemented by the provincial cancer agency or by individual researchers. Ontario is divided administratively into 14 health regions. We piloted a method to audit and score for each region of the province the KT interventions implemented to improve the quality of rectal cancer surgery. METHODS: We interviewed stakeholders to audit KT interventions used in respective regions over years 2006 to 2014. Results were summarized into narrative and visual forms. Using a modified Delphi approach, KT experts reviewed these data and then, for each region, scored implementation of KT interventions using a 20-item KT Signature Assessment Tool. Scores could range from 20 to 100 with higher scores commensurate with greater KT intervention implementation. RESULTS: There were thirty interviews. KT experts produced scores for each region that were bimodally distributed, with an average score for 2 regions of 78 (range 73-83) and for 12 regions of 30.5 (range 22-38). CONCLUSION: Our methods efficiently identified two groups with similar KT Signature scores. Two regions had relatively high scores reflecting numerous KT interventions and the use of sustained iterative approaches in addition to those encouraged by the provincial cancer agency, while 12 regions had relatively low scores reflecting minimal activities outside of those encouraged by the provincial cancer agency. These groupings will be used for future comparative quantitative analyses to help determine if higher KT signature scores correlate with improved measures for quality of rectal cancer surgery.

Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice is not always evidence-based and, therefore, may not optimise patient outcomes. Local opinion leaders (OLs) are individuals perceived as credible and trustworthy, who disseminate and implement best evidence, for instance through informal one-to-one teaching or community outreach education visits. The use of OLs is a promising strategy to bridge evidence-practice gaps. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of local opinion leaders to improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers on 3 July 2018, together with searching reference lists of included studies and contacting experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised studies comparing the effects of local opinion leaders, either alone or with a single or more intervention(s) to disseminate evidence-based practice, with no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s). Eligible studies were those reporting objective measures of professional performance, for example, the percentage of patients being prescribed a specific drug or health outcomes, or both. We included all studies independently of the method used to identify OLs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane procedures in this review. The main comparison was (i) between any intervention involving OLs (OLs alone, OLs with a single or more intervention(s)) versus any comparison intervention (no intervention, a single intervention, or the same single or more intervention(s)). We also made four secondary comparisons: ii) OLs alone versus no intervention, iii) OLs alone versus a single intervention, iv) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s), and v) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies, involving more than 337 hospitals, 350 primary care practices, 3005 healthcare professionals, and 29,167 patients (not all studies reported this information). A majority of studies were from North America, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Eighteen of these studies (21 comparisons, 71 compliance outcomes) contributed to the median adjusted risk difference (RD) for the main comparison. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 30 months). The results suggested that the OL interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' compliance with evidence-based practice (10.8% absolute improvement in compliance, interquartile range (IQR): 3.5% to 14.6%; moderate-certainty evidence).Results for the secondary comparisons also suggested that OLs probably improve compliance with evidence-based practice (moderate-certainty evidence): i) OLs alone versus no intervention: RD (IQR): 9.15% (-0.3% to 15%); ii) OLs alone versus a single intervention: RD (range): 13.8% (12% to 15.5%); iii) OLs, with a single or more intervention(s) versus the same single or more intervention(s): RD (IQR): 7.1% (-1.4% to 19%); iv) OLs with a single or more intervention(s) versus no intervention: RD (IQR):10.25% (0.6% to 15.75%).It is uncertain if OLs alone, or in combination with other intervention(s), may lead to improved patient outcomes (3 studies; 5 dichotomous outcomes) since the certainty of evidence was very low. For two of the secondary comparisons, the IQR included the possibility of a small negative effect of the OL intervention. Possible explanations for the occasional negative effects are, for example, the possibility that the OLs may have prioritised some outcomes, at the expense of others, or that an unaccounted outcome difference at baseline, may have given a faulty impression of a negative effect of the intervention at follow-up. No study reported on costs or cost-effectiveness.We were unable to determine the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to identifying OLs, as most studies used the sociometric method. Nor could we determine which methods used by OLs to educate their peers were most effective, as the methods were poorly described in most studies. In addition, we could not determine whether OL teams were more effective than single OLs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence-based practice, but the effectiveness varies both within and between studies.The effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The costs and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention(s) is unknown. These results are based on heterogeneous studies differing in types of intervention, setting, and outcomes. In most studies, the role and actions of the OL were not clearly described, and we cannot, therefore, comment on strategies to enhance their effectiveness. It is also not clear whether the methods used to identify OLs are important for their effectiveness, or whether the effect differs if education is delivered by single OLs or by multidisciplinary OL teams. Further research may help us to understand how these factors affect the effectiveness of OLs.

Primary care providers' views on a future lung cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening with low-dose computed tomography significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer in high-risk individuals. OBJECTIVE: To describe the role preferences and information needs of primary care providers (PCPs) in a future organized lung cancer screening program. METHODS: We purposively sampled PCPs from diverse health regions of Ontario and from different practice models including family health teams and community health centres. We also recruited family physicians with a leadership role in cancer screening. We used focus groups and a nominal group process to identify informational priorities. Two analysts systematically applied a coding scheme to interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four groups were held with 34 providers and administrative staff [28 (82%) female, 21 (62%) physicians, 7 (20%) other health professionals and 6 (18%) administrative staff]. PCPs and staff were generally positive about a potential lung cancer screening program but had variable views on their involvement. Informational needs included evidence of potential benefits and harms of screening. Most providers preferred that a new program be modelled on positive features of an existing breast cancer screening program. Lung cancer screening was viewed as a new opportunity to counsel patients about smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a future lung cancer screening program should consider the wide variability in the roles that PCPs preferred. An explicit link to existing smoking cessation programs was seen as essential. As providers had significant information needs, learning materials and opportunities should be developed with them.

The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients - a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake. METHODS/DESIGN: The BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40-65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach. DISCUSSION: This project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761 . Registered on December 19, 2016.

Variable participation of knowledge users in cancer health services research: results of a multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a research approach in which knowledge users (KUs) co-produce research. The rationale for IKT is that it leads to research that is more relevant and useful to KUs, thereby accelerating uptake of findings. The aim of the current study was to evaluate IKT activities within a cancer health services research network in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: An embedded multiple case study design was used. The cases were 5 individual studies within an overarching cancer health services research network. These studies focused on one of the following topics: case costing of cancer treatment, lung cancer surgery policy analysis, patient and provider-reported outcomes, colorectal cancer screening, and a team approach to women's survivorship. We conducted document reviews and held semi-structured interviews with researchers, KUs, and other stakeholders within a cancer system organization. The analysis examined patterns across and within cases. RESULTS: Researchers and their respective knowledge users from 4 of the 5 cases agreed to participate. Eighteen individuals from 4 cases were interviewed. In 3 of 4 cases, there were mismatched expectations between researchers and KUs regarding KU role; participants recommended that expectations be made explicit from the beginning of the collaboration. KUs perceived that frequent KU turnover may have affected both KU engagement and the uptake of study results within the organization. Researchers and KUs found that sharing research results was challenging because the organization lacked a framework for knowledge translation. Uptake of research findings appeared to be related to the researcher having an embedded role in the cancer system organization and/or close alignment of the study with organizational priorities. Document reviews found evidence of planned IKT strategies in 3 of 4 cases; however, actual KU role/engagement on research teams was variable. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to KU co-production of cancer health services research include mismatched expectations of KU role and frequent KU turnover. When a research study directly aligns with organizational priorities, it appears more likely that results will be considered in programming. Research teams that take an IKT approach should consider specific strategies to address barriers to KU engagement.

BETTER HEALTH: Durham -- protocol for a cluster randomized trial of BETTER in community and public health settings.

BACKGROUND: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada). METHODS: The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant's eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals. BETTER HEALTH: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40-64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial's Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and key informant interviews. DISCUSSION: The effectiveness of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be tested for delivery in low income neighbourhoods by a public health department. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017.

Piloting electronic screening forms in primary care: findings from a mixed methods study to identify patients eligible for low dose CT lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer. However, optimal methods to identify potentially eligible patients in primary care are not known. Using brief electronic screening forms administered prior to a primary care visit is a strategy to identify high risk, asymptomatic patients eligible for LDCT screening. The objective of this study was to compare the acceptability and feasibility of using brief electronic versus paper screening forms to identify eligible patients at high risk of developing lung cancer in primary care. METHODS: A mixed method pilot comparative study was conducted in primary care. Practices were allocated to an electronic form (e-form) group or a paper-based form (p-form) group. Allocation was randomly assigned for the first practice then by alternation. Patients in the e-form practices completed forms at home via the web or in the waiting room on a tablet. Patients in p-form practices completed forms in waiting rooms. Interviews were conducted with patients, administrators, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about their experiences. RESULTS: Six of 30 (20%) eligible practices agreed to participate. Over the 16-week study period, a total of 831 of an expected 1442 patients (58%) aged 55-74 years were enrolled; 573/690 (83%) patients in the e-form group and 258/752 (34%) in the p-form group. Of the 573 participants in the e-form group, 335 (58%) completed forms via the web; 238 (29%) did so via tablet. Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 5 administrative staff and 4 PCPs. Patients were willing to discuss lung cancer screening eligibility with their PCP. Staff members expressed low administrative burden except for an extra step to link appointment information to patient demographics to identify eligible patients. PCPs indicated that forms were reminders to discuss smoking cessation. PCPs in the e-form group reported that patients asked questions about screening. CONCLUSION: There was fairly low uptake by primary care practices. For e-forms to be feasible in practice workflow, electronic medical record software needs to link appointment information with patient eligibility requirements. The use of brief pre-consultation electronic screening forms for LDCT eligibility encouraged PCPs to discuss smoking cessation with patients.

A Population-Based Study of the Effects of a Regional Guideline for Completion Axillary Lymph Node Dissection on Axillary Surgery in Patients with Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 trial suggests completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) after positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (+SLNB) does not improve outcomes in select patients, leading to practice variation. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists developed a regional guideline for cALND which was disseminated in August 2012. We assessed the impact of Z0011 and the regional guideline on cALND rates. METHODS: Consecutive invasive breast cancer cases undergoing SLNB were reviewed at 12 hospitals. Patient, tumor, and process measures were collected for three time periods: TP1, before publication of Z0011 (May 2009-August 2010); TP2, after publication of Z0011 (March 2011-June 2012); and TP3, after guideline dissemination (January 2013-April 2014). Cases were categorized by whether they met the guideline criteria for cALND (i.e. ≤50 years, mastectomy, T3 tumor, three or more positive sentinel lymph nodes [SLNs]) or not (e.g. age > 50 years, breast-conserving surgery, T1/T2 tumor, and one to two positive SLNs). RESULTS: The SLNB rate increased from 56 % (n = 620), to 70 % (n = 774), to 78 % (n = 844) in TP1, TP2, and TP3, respectively. Among cases not recommended for cALND using the guideline criteria, cALND rates decreased significantly over time (TP1, 71 %; TP2, 43 %; TP3, 17 %) [p < 0.001]. The cALND rate also decreased over time among cases recommended to have cALND using the guideline criteria (TP1, 92 %; TP2, 69 %; TP3, 58 %) [p < 0.001]. Based on multivariable analysis, age and nodal factors appeared to be significant factors for cALND decision making. CONCLUSION: Publication of ACOSOG Z0011 and regional guideline dissemination were associated with a marked decrease in cALND after +SLNB, even among several cases in which the guideline recommended cALND.

Patients' experiences with continuity of cancer care in Canada: Results from the CanIMPACT study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient perspectives on and experiences with the coordination and continuity of cancer care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight breast and colorectal cancer survivors 1 to 4 years after diagnosis. METHODS: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with the participants. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and proofread. Transcripts were reviewed to create a focused coding scheme that was used to develop categories for participants' experiences. MAIN FINDINGS: Although this study focused on the continuity of cancer care, patients described their experiences with cancer care in general, concentrating predominantly on their relationships with individual health care providers (HCPs). Based on patients' experiences, several themes were identified as the core components of providing good continuity and well coordinated care. The most important overarching theme was communication, which overlapped with 4 other themes: patient-HCP relationships, the role of HCPs, lack of access to care, and timely and tailored information. CONCLUSION: Patients believed that good communication between HCPs and patients was key to improving the overall continuity of cancer care. Continuity of care is an important theoretical concept in cancer care, but it is not easily recognized by patients. They perceive the cancer care continuum and continuity of care as cancer care in general, which is typically framed by the individual relationships with their HCPs. Future research and interventions need to focus on finding and testing ways to improve communication to enhance continuity of cancer care.

Coordination of cancer care between family physicians and cancer specialists: Importance of communication.

OBJECTIVE: To explore health care provider (HCP) perspectives on the coordination of cancer care between FPs and cancer specialists. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 58 HCPs, comprising 21 FPs, 15 surgeons, 12 medical oncologists, 6 radiation oncologists, and 4 GPs in oncology. METHODS: This qualitative study is nested within a larger mixed-methods program of research, CanIMPACT (Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum), focused on improving the coordination of cancer care between FPs and cancer specialists. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, telephone interviews were conducted with HCPs involved in cancer care. Invitations to participate were sent to a purposive sample of HCPs based on medical specialty, sex, province or territory, and geographic location (urban or rural). A coding schema was developed by 4 team members; subsequently, 1 team member coded the remaining transcripts. The resulting themes were reviewed by the entire team and a summary of results was mailed to participants for review. MAIN FINDINGS: Communication challenges emerged as the most prominent theme. Five key related subthemes were identified around this core concept that occurred at both system and individual levels. System-level issues included delays in medical transcription, difficulties accessing patient information, and physicians not being copied on all reports. Individual-level issues included the lack of rapport between FPs and cancer specialists, and the lack of clearly defined and broadly communicated roles. CONCLUSION: Effective and timely communication of medical information, as well as clearly defined roles for each provider, are essential to good coordination of care along the cancer care trajectory, particularly during transitions of care between cancer specialist and FP care. Despite advances in technology, substantial communication challenges still exist. This can lead to serious consequences that affect clinical decision making.

Documenting coordination of cancer care between primary care providers and oncology specialists in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the findings of the CanIMPACT (Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum) Casebook project, which systematically documented Canadian initiatives (ie, programs and projects) designed to improve or support coordination and continuity of cancer care between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology specialists. DESIGN: Pan-Canadian environmental scan. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals representing the various initiatives provided data for the analysis. METHODS: Initiatives included in the Casebook met the following criteria: they supported coordination and collaboration between PCPs and oncology specialists; they were related to diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, or personalized medicine; and they included breast or colorectal cancer or both. Data were collected on forms that were compiled into summaries (ie, profiles) for each initiative. Casebook initiatives were organized based on the targeted stage of the cancer care continuum, jurisdiction, and strategy (ie, model of care or type of intervention) employed. Thematic analysis identified similarities and differences among employed strategies, the level of primary care engagement, implementation barriers and facilitators, and initiative evaluation. MAIN FINDINGS: The CanIMPACT Casebook profiles 24 initiatives. Eleven initiatives targeted the survivorship stage of the cancer care continuum and 15 focused specifically on breast or colorectal cancer or both. Initiative teams implemented the following strategies: nurse patient navigation, multidisciplinary care teams, electronic communication or information systems, PCP education, and multicomponent initiatives. Initiatives engaged PCPs at various levels. Implementation barriers included lack of care standardization across jurisdictions and incompatibility among electronic communication systems. Implementation facilitators included having clinical and program leaders publicly support the initiative, repurposing existing resources, receiving financial support, and establishing a motivated and skilled project or program team. The lack of evaluative data made it difficult to identify the most effective interventions or models of care. CONCLUSION: The CanIMPACT Casebook documents Canadian efforts to improve or support the coordination of cancer care by PCPs and oncology specialists as a means to improve patient outcomes and cancer system performance.

Primary care providers' experiences with and perceptions of personalized genomic medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess primary care providers' (PCPs') experiences with, perceptions of, and desired role in personalized medicine, with a focus on cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving focus groups. SETTING: Urban and rural interprofessional primary care team practices in Alberta and Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one PCPs. METHODS: Semistructured focus groups were conducted and audiorecorded. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using techniques informed by grounded theory including coding, interpretations of patterns in the data, and constant comparison. MAIN FINDINGS: Five focus groups with the 51 participants were conducted; 2 took place in Alberta and 3 in Ontario. Primary care providers described limited experience with personalized medicine, citing breast cancer and prenatal care as main areas of involvement. They expressed concern over their lack of knowledge, in some circumstances relying on personal experiences to inform their attitudes and practice. Participants anticipated an inevitable role in personalized medicine primarily because patients seek and trust their advice; however, there was underlying concern about the magnitude of information and pace of discovery in this area, particularly in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing. Increased knowledge, closer ties to genetics specialists, and relevant, reliable personalized medicine resources accessible at the point of care were reported as important for successful implementation of personalized medicine. CONCLUSION: Primary care providers are prepared to discuss personalized medicine, but they require better resources. Models of care that support a more meaningful relationship between PCPs and genetics specialists should be pursued. Continuing education strategies need to address knowledge gaps including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, a relatively new area provoking PCP concern. Primary care providers should be mindful of using personal experiences to guide care.

Results of a surgeon-directed quality improvement project on breast cancer surgery outcomes in South-Central Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Gaps in breast cancer (BC) surgical care have been identified. We have completed a surgeon-directed, iterative project to improve the quality of BC surgery in South-Central Ontario. METHODS: Surgeons performing BC surgery in a single Ontario health region were invited to participate. Interventions included: audit and feedback (A&F) of surgeon-selected quality indicators (QIs), workshops, and tailoring interviews. Workshops and A&F occurred yearly from 2005-2012. QIs included: preoperative imaging; preoperative core biopsy; positive margin rates; specimen orientation labeling; intraoperative specimen radiography of nonpalpable lesions; T1/T2 mastectomy rates; reoperation for positive margins; sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) rates, number of sentinel lymph nodes; and days to receive pathology report. Semistructured tailoring interviews were conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to improved quality. All results were disseminated to all surgeons performing breast surgery in the study region. RESULTS: Over 6 time periods, 1,828 BC charts were reviewed from 12 hospitals (8 community and 4 academic). Twenty-two to 40 participants attended each workshop. Sustained improvement in rates of positive margins, preoperative core biopsies, specimen orientation labeling, and SLNB were seen. Mastectomy rates and overall axillary staging rates did not change, whereas time to receive pathology report increased. The tailoring interviews concerning positive margins, SLNB, and reoperation for positive margins identified facilitators and barriers relevant to surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: This surgeon-directed, regional project resulted in meaningful improvement in numerous QIs. There was consistent and sustained participation by surgeons, highlighting the importance of integrating the clinicians in a long-term, iterative quality improvement strategy in BC surgery.