Wait times and breast cancer survival: a population-based retrospective cohort study using CanIMPACT data.

PURPOSE: The time from breast cancer surgery to chemotherapy has been shown to affect survival outcomes; however, the effect of time from first breast cancer-related healthcare contact to first cancer specialist consultation, or the time from first breast cancer-related healthcare contact to adjuvant chemotherapy on survival has not been well explored. We aimed to determine whether various wait times along the breast cancer treatment pathway (contact-to-consultation, contact-to-chemotherapy, surgery-to-chemotherapy) were associated with overall survival in women within the Canadian province of Ontario. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2011 who received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. This was the Ontario cohort of a larger, nationwide study (the Canadian Team to improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum - CanIMPACT). We used Cox-proportional hazards regression to determine the association between the contact-to-consultation, contact-to-chemotherapy, and surgery-to-chemotherapy intervals and overall survival while adjusting for cancer stage, age, comorbidity, neighborhood income, immigration status, surgery type, and method of cancer detection. RESULTS: Among 12,782 breast cancer patients, longer surgery-to-chemotherapy intervals (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.18 per 30-day increase), but not the contact-to-consultation (HR 0.979, 95% CI 0.95-1.01 per 30-day increase), nor the more comprehensive contact-to-chemotherapy intervals (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02 per 30-day increase) were associated with decreased survival in our adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the prognostic importance of a shorter surgery-to-chemotherapy interval, whereas the contact-to-consultation and contact-to-chemotherapy intervals have less impact on survival outcomes.

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.

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.

PURPOSE: The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

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.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.

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.

Clinical features of glioma patients who develop pneumocystis pneumonia with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of glioma with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy predisposes patients to pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). Because PCP is a rare outcome, very little is known about specific clinical risk factors for its development in patients with glioma. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of glioma patients undergoing temozolomide chemoradiotherapy 2005 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We compared clinical features of patients who did not versus did develop PCP within one year of chemoradiotherapy. We examined the overall survival of patients by PCP status. RESULTS: There were 5130 patients with glioma treated with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy. Ultimately, 38 patients (0.74%) were diagnosed with PCP within 1 year of chemoradiotherapy. Most (71%) infections occurred between 0-90 days and 29% occurred between 91-365 days. Median survival was 12.3 months in patients who did not develop PCP and 8.6 months in those who did develop PCP (P < 0.001). Trough 90-day lymphocyte counts were lower in the PCP group. When the lymphocytes fell below 0.19 × 109/L (or 0.25 × 109/L among patients without PCP prophylaxis), the risk of PCP was > 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumocystis pneumonia is rare in glioma patients who receive temozolomide chemoradiotherapy. Infection is associated with shorter survival and the development of lymphopenia. Reserving PCP prophylaxis for patients whose lymphocyte counts drop below 0.25 × 109/L may be a reasonable strategy.

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.

Psychological consequences of MRI-based screening among women with strong family histories of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: MRI-based screening in women with a ≥ 25% lifetime risk of breast cancer , but no identifiable genetic mutations may be associated with false positives. This study examined the psychological impact of abnormal screens and biopsies in non-mutation carriers participating in high-risk screening with no personal history of breast cancer. METHODS: Non-mutation carriers participating in the High-Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program at two sites were mailed demographic surveys, psychological scales, and chart review consent. Scales included the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer questionnaire, Lerman Breast Cancer Worry Scale, and Worry Interference Scale. Missing data were managed with multiple imputation. Multivariable regression was used to assess whether abnormal screens or biopsies were associated with adverse psychological effects. RESULTS: After contacting 465 participants, 169 non-mutation carriers were included. Median age was 46 years (range 30-65). Over a median 3 years of screening, 63.9% of women experienced at least one abnormal screen, and 24.9% underwent biopsies. Statements relating to cancer worry/anxiety scored highest, with 19.5% indicating they worried "a lot". Higher scores among anxiety-related statements were strongly associated with higher dejection scores. Overall, coping and daily functioning were preserved. Women indicated some positive reactions to screening, including improved existential values and reassurance they do not have breast cancer. Abnormal screens and biopsies were not significantly associated with any psychological scale, even after adjustment for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Non-mutation carriers undergoing MRI-based screening had considerable baseline anxiety and cancer worry, although daily functioning was not impaired. Abnormal screens and biopsies did not appear to have adverse psychological effects.

Abnormal screens among nonmutation carriers in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program was expanded in 2011 to offer annual MRI and mammography to women with high-risk genetic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2) and women with strong family histories and ≥25% estimated lifetime risk of breast cancer. Data to support high-risk screening is less clear in the nonmutation carrier group, as MRI has lower specificity among this population. The potential unintended consequences may be considerable and need to be explored. We aimed to describe the frequency of abnormal screens and biopsies. METHODS: Demographic surveys and chart review consent were sent to a sample of 441 individuals enrolled in a high-risk screening program at two tertiary care hospitals in Toronto, Ontario. Retrospective cross-sectional chart review was undertaken for clinicopathologic data. The frequencies of abnormal screens and biopsies were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine nonmutation carriers were included. The majority were white, employed, and highly educated. The median International Breast Cancer Intervention Study lifetime risk of breast cancer was 28.0% (range 24.5%-89.0%). 108 individuals (64%) experienced at least 1 abnormal screen and 13 (8%) had 3 or more over a median 3 years of screening (range 1-6 years). Of 55 biopsies, 3 (5.5%) were malignant. The cancer detection rate was 8.4/1000 screens (95% CI 3.2-22.4). CONCLUSIONS: An MRI-based screening program for nonmutation carriers was effective at diagnosing breast cancer. However, this population experienced a high rate of abnormal screens and intervention. Further research is needed to improve the performance of MRI-based screening in these women.

Adherence to quality breast cancer survivorship care in four Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In order to maximize later health, there are established components and guidelines for quality follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. However, adherence to quality follow-up in Canada may not be optimal, and may vary by province. We determined and compared the proportion of patients in each province who received adherent and non-adherent surveillance for recurrence, new cancers and late effects, recommended preventive care, and recommended physician visits for comorbidities. METHODS: Cohorts consisted of all adult women diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2010/2012 in four Canadian provinces (British Columbia (BC) N = 9338; Manitoba N = 2688; Ontario N = 23,700; Nova Scotia (NS) N = 2735), identified from provincial cancer registries, alive and cancer-free at 30 months post-diagnosis. Their healthcare utilization was determined from one to 5 years post-treatment, using linked administrative databases. Adherence, underuse, and overuse of recommended services were evaluated yearly and compared using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In all provinces and follow-up years, the majority of survivors had more than the recommended number of visits to either an oncologist or primary care physician (range 53.8% NS Year 3; 85.8% Ontario Year 4). The proportion of patients with the guideline-recommended number of oncologist visits varied by province (range 29.8% BC Year 5; 74.8% Ontario Year 5), and the proportion of patients with less than the recommended number of specified breast cancer-related visits with either an oncologist or primary care physician ranged from 32.6% (Ontario Year 2) to 84.4% (NS Year 3). Underuse of surveillance breast imaging was identified in NS and BC. The proportion of patients receiving imaging for metastatic disease (not recommended in the guidelines) in BC, Manitoba, and Ontario (not reported in NS) ranged from 20.3% (BC Year 5) to 53.3% (Ontario Year 2). Compliance with recommended physician visits for patients with several chronic conditions was high in Ontario and NS. Preventive care was less than optimal in all provinces with available data. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of breast cancer survivor follow-up care varies among provinces. Results point to exploration of factors affecting differences, province-specific opportunities for care improvement, and the value of administrative datasets for health system assessment.

Ambulatory Toxicity Management (AToM) in patients receiving adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer - a pragmatic cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015.

User-Centered Design of a Web-Based Tool to Support Management of Chemotherapy-Related Toxicities in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy have high symptom needs that can negatively impact quality of life and result in high rates of unplanned acute care visits. Remote monitoring tools may improve symptom management in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to design a prototype tool to facilitate remote management of chemotherapy-related toxicities. METHODS: User needs were assessed using a participatory, user-centered design methodology that included field observation, interviews, and focus groups, and then analyzed using affinity diagramming. Participants included oncology patients, caregivers, and health care providers (HCPs) including medical oncologists, oncology nurses, primary care physicians, and pharmacists in Ontario, Canada. Overarching themes informed development of a Web-based prototype, which was further refined over 2 rounds of usability testing with end users. RESULTS: Overarching themes were derived from needs assessments, which included 14 patients, 1 caregiver, and 12 HCPs. Themes common to both patients and HCPs included gaps and barriers in current systems, need for decision aids, improved communication and options in care delivery, secure access to credible and timely information, and integration into existing systems. In addition, patients identified missed opportunities, care not meeting their needs, feeling overwhelmed and anxious, and wanting to be more empowered. HCPs identified accountability for patient management as an issue. These themes informed development of a Web-based prototype (bridges), which included toxicity tracking, self-management advice, and HCP communication functionalities. Usability testing with 11 patients and 11 HCPs was generally positive; however, identified challenges included tool integration into existing workflows, need for standardized toxicity self-management advice, issues of privacy and consent, and patient-tailored information. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based tools integrating just-in-time self-management advice and HCP support into routine care may address gaps in systems for managing chemotherapy-related toxicities. Attention to the integration of new electronic tools into self-care by patients and practice was a strong theme for both patients and HCP participants and is a key issue that needs to be addressed for wide-scale adoption.

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.

Disruption or innovation? A qualitative descriptive study on the use of electronic patient-physician communication in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: In the advanced cancer context, care coordination is often inadequate, leading to suboptimal continuity of care. We evaluated an electronic web-based tool which assembles the patient, their caregivers, and their healthcare providers in a virtual space for team-based communication. We sought to understand participant perceptions on electronic communication in general and the added value of the new tool in particular. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study with participants (patients, caregivers, cancer physicians) who participated in a 3-month pilot trial evaluating the tool. Interviews were thematically analyzed and the perspectives from patients, caregivers, and cancer physicians were triangulated. Interviews from six patients, five of their caregivers, and seven cancer physicians conducted alongside monthly outcome assessments were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified five themes relating participants' perspectives on electronic communication to their experience of care: (1) apparent gaps in care, (2) uncertainty in defining the circle of care, (3) relational aspects of communication, (4) incongruence between technology and social norms of patient-physician communication, and (5) appreciation but apprehension about the team-based communication tool for improving the experience of care. CONCLUSIONS: The potential of tools for electronic communication to bring together a team of healthcare providers with the patient and caregivers is significant but may pose new challenges to existing team structure and interpersonal dynamics. Patients and physicians were worried about the impact that electronic communication may have on the patient-physician relationship. Implementation approaches, which build on the relationship and integrate the team as a whole, could positively position electronic communication to enhance the team-based care.

Making It Happen: Middle Managers' Roles in Innovation Implementation in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Middle managers are given scant attention in the implementation literature in health care, where the focus is on senior leaders and frontline clinicians. AIMS: To empirically examine the role of middle managers relevant to innovation implementation and how middle managers experience the implementation process. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using the methods of grounded theory. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with middle managers (N = 15) in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada. Participants were purposively sampled, based on their involvement in implementation initiatives and to obtain variation in manager characteristics. Data were collected and analyzed concurrently, using an inductive constant comparative approach. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was reached. RESULTS: Middle managers see themselves as being responsible for making implementation happen in their programs and services. As a result, they carry out five roles related to implementation: planner, coordinator, facilitator, motivator, and evaluator. However, the data also revealed two determinants of middle managers' role in implementation, which they must negotiate to fulfill their specific implementation roles and activities: (1) They perform many other roles and responsibilities within their organizations, both clinical and managerial in nature, and (2) they have limited decision-making power with respect to implementation and must work within the parameters set by upper levels of the organization. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Middle managers play an important role in translating adoption decisions into on-the-ground implementation. Optimizing their capacity to fulfill this role may be key to improving innovation implementation in healthcare organizations.

Identifying predictors of delayed diagnoses in symptomatic breast cancer: a scoping review.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer can adversely impact patient outcomes. To better understand this issue, we conducted a scoping review of literature from 1996 to 2015 that examined predictors of delayed presentation and diagnosis among women with breast cancer symptoms. We performed searches to identify studies of predictors of the time from symptom onset to first presentation (the patient interval), first presentation to diagnosis (the diagnostic interval) and symptom onset to diagnosis (the total interval) among women with breast cancer symptoms. Two reviewers independently reviewed and abstracted the findings of these studies. Of the 22 studies included in this review, 16 examined predictors of the patient interval, six examined predictors of the diagnostic interval and four examined predictors of the total interval. A total of 116 predictors were examined; three had evidence of an association with a less timely diagnosis: not disclosing symptoms to others, non-lump breast symptoms and African American ethnicity. Improving awareness of atypical breast cancer symptoms and encouraging disclosure could improve the timeliness of a breast cancer diagnosis. Access concerns for vulnerable groups need to be addressed. Future research should be more purposeful in its choice of predictors, possibly through the use of established conceptual frameworks.

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.