Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research.

BACKGROUND: The challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Participants held either a formal leadership role, were research active or a consumer advocate and affiliated with either a specialist cancer hospital or a cancer alliance of ten hospitals. Interview data were summarised and shared with participants prior to undertaking both thematic analysis, to identify priority areas for implementation research, and content analysis, to identify potential pilot implementation research projects. The selected pilot Implementation research project was prioritised using a synthesis of an organisational and implementation prioritisation framework - the organisational priority setting framework and APEASE framework. RESULTS: Thirty-one people participated between August 2022 and February 2023. Four themes were identified: 1) Integration of services to address organisational priorities e.g., tackling fragmented services; 2) Application of digital health interventions e.g., identifying the potential benefits of digital health interventions; 3) Identification of potential for implementation research, including deimplementation i.e., discontinuing ineffective or low value care and; 4) Focusing on direct patient engagement e.g., wider consumer awareness of the challenges in delivering cancer care. Six potential pilot implementation research projects were identified and the EMBED project, to support clinicians to refer appropriate patients with cancer for genetic testing, was selected using the synthesised prioritisation framework. CONCLUSIONS: Using a theory informed and structured approach the alignment between strategic organisational priorities and implementation research priorities can be identified. As a result, the implementation research focus can be placed on activities with the highest potential impact.

Interventions in adult patients with multimorbidity in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity, the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions in the same individual, is a major public health problem in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The use of single-disease guidelines contributes to polypharmacy, fragmented care and increased treatment burden. Health systems in LMICs are very different from those in high-income countries, and adapting interventions from one to the other may not be feasible. This review aims to systematically present the current evidence for interventions for multimorbidity in the LMIC setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this mixed-methods systematic review, we will include all studies of interventions for the care of adults (>18 years of age) with multimorbidity (defined as the presence of two or more chronic illnesses in an individual) in any healthcare organisation (primary, secondary or tertiary care) in an LMIC (as defined by the World Bank), published between 2000 and March 2023. All primary study designs will be included. Studies reported in languages other than English and those describing interventions classified as 'financial' or 'governance arrangement' according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care classification will be excluded. MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, TRIP, SCOPUS and the 3ie databases will be searched. The titles will be screened by one author, and two authors will independently screen all included abstracts and full texts. A third author will resolve conflicts at every stage. Studies will be reviewed for quality of evidence using appropriate tools. Epidemiological, intervention and outcome data will be extracted and summarised. Outcomes of interest for LMICs defined by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases research group will be analysed. Subgroup analysis according to study types and study settings will be done. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated through publication in an open-access journal and presentation at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023391897.

Characterisation of young stroke presentations, pathways of care, and support for 'invisible' difficulties: a retrospective clinical audit study.

Background Young stroke survivors are likely to be discharged home from acute hospital care without rehabilitation more quickly than older survivors, but it is not clear why. File-audit studies capturing real-world clinical practice are lacking for this cohort. We aimed to compare characteristics and care pathways of young and older survivors and describe stroke presentations and predictors of pathways of care in young survivors (≤45years), including a focus on care received for 'invisible' (cognitive, psychological) difficulties. Methods A retrospective audit of 847 medical records (67 young stroke survivors, mean age=36years; 780 older patients, mean age=70years) was completed for stroke survivors admitted to an Australian tertiary hospital. Stroke characteristics and presence of cognitive difficulties (identified through clinician opinion or cognitive screening) were used to predict length of stay and discharge destination in young stroke survivors. Results There were no differences in length of stay between young and older survivors, however, young stroke survivors were more likely to be discharged home without rehabilitation (though this may be due to milder strokes observed in young stroke survivors). For young stroke survivors, stroke severity and age predicted discharge destination, while cognitive difficulties predicted longer length of stay. While almost all young survivors were offered occupational therapy and physiotherapy, none received psychological input (clinical, health or neuropsychology). Conclusions Cognitive and psychological needs of young stroke survivors may remain largely unmet by a service model designed for older people. Findings can inform service development or models of care, such as the new Australian Young Stroke Service designed to better meet the needs of young survivors.

Improving the Well-Being of People With Advanced Cancer and Their Family Caregivers: Protocol for an Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of a Dyadic Digital Health Intervention (FOCUSau).

BACKGROUND: Advanced cancer significantly impacts patients' and family caregivers' quality of life. When patients and caregivers are supported concurrently as a dyad, the well-being of each person is optimized. Family, Outlook, Communication, Uncertainty, Symptom management (FOCUS) is a dyadic, psychoeducational intervention developed in the United States, shown to improve the well-being and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer and their primary caregivers. Originally, a nurse-delivered in-person intervention, FOCUS has been adapted into a self-administered web-based intervention for European delivery. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to (1) adapt FOCUS to the Australian context (FOCUSau); (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FOCUSau in improving the emotional well-being and self-efficacy of patients with advanced cancer and their primary caregiver relative to usual care control group; (3) compare health care use between the intervention and control groups; and (4) assess the acceptability, feasibility, and scalability of FOCUSau in order to inform future maintainable implementation of the intervention within the Australian health care system. METHODS: FOCUS will be adapted prior to trial commencement, using an iterative stakeholder feedback process to create FOCUSau. To examine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of FOCUSau and assess its acceptability, feasibility, and scalability, we will undertake a hybrid type 1 implementation study consisting of a phase 3 (clinical effectiveness) trial along with an observational implementation study. Participants will include patients with cancer who are older than 18 years, able to access the internet, and able to identify a primary support person or caregiver who can also be approached for participation. The sample size consists of 173 dyads in each arm (ie, 346 dyads in total). Patient-caregiver dyad data will be collected at 3 time points-baseline (T0) completed prerandomization; first follow-up (T1; N=346) at 12 weeks post baseline; and second follow-up (T2) at 24 weeks post baseline. RESULTS: The study was funded in March 2022. Recruitment commenced in July 2024. CONCLUSIONS: If shown to be effective, this intervention will improve the well-being of patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, regardless of their location or current level of health care support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06082128; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06082128. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55252.