Acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A qualitative evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed. RESULTS: Thirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported. CONCLUSION: Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.

Patients' acceptance of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between general practitioners and radiation oncologists: A population-based survey using the theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

INTRODUCTION: International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients' acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). RESULTS: Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care. CONCLUSION: Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients' involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change.

Cancer Care Team's Management of Clinical Alerts Generated by Electronically Collected Patient Reported Outcomes: We Could Do Better.

Electronically administered patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are effective digital health tools for informing clinicians about cancer patients' symptoms and facilitating timely patient-centred care. This paper describes the delivery of healthcare activities supported by the PROMPT-Care model, including ePROMs generated clinical alerts, cancer care team (CCT) response to alerts, and patients' perceptions of the CCT response and ePROMs system. This mixed-methods study includes cancer patients from four cancer therapy centres in New South Wales, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding clinical alert activity, CCT response, and patient perceptions of the CCT responses and ePROMs system. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Of the 328 participants whose care was informed by the digital health tool, 70.8% (n = 233) generated at least one alert during the trial period, with 877 alerts generated in total. Although 43.7% (n = 383) were actioned by the CCT, at least 80% of participants found follow-up CCT phone calls beneficial, with multiple benefits confirmed in interviews. The cancer care delivery arm of the PROMPT-Care trial involving clinical alerts to the CCT was positively perceived by most participants, resulting in a diverse range of benefits. However, further work is required, informed by implementation science, to improve the percentage of actioned clinical alerts.

Factors influencing the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The increasing incidence of cancer, coupled with improved survivorship, has increased demand for cancer follow-up care and the need to find alternative models of care. Shared cancer follow-up care in general practice is a safe option in terms of quality of life and cancer recurrence; however, there are barriers to translating this into practice. This review aimed to identify factors that influence the translation of shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice. METHODS: Systematic review. Seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, APA Psychinfo, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, were searched for published papers between January 1999 and December 2021. The narrative review included papers if they were available in full-text, English, peer-reviewed and focused on shared cancer follow-up care. RESULTS: Thirty-eight papers were included in the final review. Five main themes emerged: (1) reciprocal clinical information sharing is needed between oncologists and general practitioners, and needs to be timely and relevant; (2) responsibility of care should be shared with the oncologist overseeing care; (3) general practitioners skills and knowledge to provide cancer follow-up care; (4) need for clinical management guidelines and rapid referral to support general practitioners to provide shared follow-up care and (5) continuity of care and satisfaction of care is vital for shared care. CONCLUSION: The acceptability of shared cancer follow-up care is increasing. Several barriers still exist to translating this into practice. Work is required to develop a shared-care model that can support general practitioners, while the oncologist can oversee the care and implement two-way communication between general and oncologists' clinics. The move towards integrating electronic healthcare records and web-based platforms for information exchange provides a promise to the timely exchange of information. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191538.

Concordance between General Practitioners and Radiation Oncologists for Cancer Follow-Up Care.

(1) Background: Patients treated with radiotherapy require follow-up care to detect and treat acute and late side effects, and to monitor for recurrence. The increasing demand for follow-up care poses a challenge for specialists and general practitioners. There is a perception that general practitioners do not have the specialised knowledge of treatment side effects and how to manage these. Knowing the concordance between general practitioner and oncologist clinical assessments can improve confidence in healthcare professionals. This study aimed to measure the level of agreement between general practitioners and radiation oncologists using a standardised clinical assessment; (2) Methods: a cross-sectional clinical practice study; sample aim of 20 breast, prostate or colorectal patients, three years post-radiotherapy treatment; their general practitioner and radiation oncologist; (3) Results: There was acceptable percent agreement (>75%) and a moderate to almost perfect agreement (Fleiss kappa) for all variables between the 15 general practitioner-radiation oncologist dyads; (4) Conclusions: The general practitioner and radiation oncologist concordance of a clinical follow-up assessment for radiation oncology patients is an important finding. These results can reassure both general practitioners and oncologists that general practitioners can provide cancer follow-up care. However, further studies are warranted to confirm the findings and improve reassurance for health professionals.

A Shared Cancer Follow-Up Model of Care Between General Practitioners and Radiation Oncologists for Patients With Breast, Prostate, and Colorectal Cancer: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: The rising incidence of cancer and increasing numbers of cancer survivors have resulted in the need to find alternative models of care for cancer follow-up care. The acceptability for follow-up care in general practice is growing, and acceptance increases with shared-care models where oncologists continue to oversee the care. However, a major barrier to this model is the effective exchange of information in real time between oncologists and general practitioners. Improved communication technology plays an important role in the acceptability and feasibility of shared cancer follow-up care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a shared cancer follow-up model of care between patients, general practitioners and radiation oncologists. METHODS: This is a mixed methods, multisite implementation study exploring shared follow-up care for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiotherapy in New South Wales, Australia. This study uses web-based technology to support general practitioners in performing some aspects of routine radiotherapy follow-up care, while being overseen by a radiation oncologist in real time. The study has two phases: Phase 1 is designed to establish the level of agreement between general practitioners and radiation oncologists and Phase 2 is designed to implement shared follow-up care into practice and to evaluate this implementation. RESULTS: Recruitment of radiation oncologists, patients, and general practitioners commenced in December 2020 and will continue until February 2021. Data collection will occur during 2021, and data will be ready for analysis by the end of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have investigated the role of health technologies in supporting communication deficiencies for shared cancer follow-up care. The implementation and evaluation of models of care need to be conducted using a person-centered approach that is responsive to patients' preferences and needs. Should the findings of the study be acceptable and feasible to radiation oncologists, general practitioners, and patients, it can be quickly implemented and expanded to other tumor groups or to medical oncology and hematology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001083987; http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380057. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/21752.

eHealth System for Collecting and Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) Among Cancer Patients: Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluate Feasibility and Acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Despite accumulating evidence indicating that collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and transferring results to the treating health professional in real time has the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes, this practice is not widespread. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care), a newly developed electronic health (eHealth) system that facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. METHODS: We developed an eHealth system in consultation with content-specific expert advisory groups and tested it with patients receiving treatment or follow-up care in two hospitals in New South Wales, Australia, over a 3-month period. Participants were recruited in clinic and completed self-report Web-based assessments either just before their upcoming clinical consultation or every 4 weeks if in follow-up care. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care; data collected throughout the study informed the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, and extent of missing data was determined from participants' assessments. Patients participated in cognitive interviews while completing their first assessment and completed evaluation surveys and interviews at study-end to assess system acceptability and usefulness of patient self-management resources, and oncology staff were interviewed at study-end to determine the acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients consented to the study; 7 patients were withdrawn before starting the intervention primarily because of changes in eligibility. Overall, 35 patients (13 on treatment and 22 in follow-up) completed 67 assessments during the study period. Mean completeness of patient-reported data was 93%, with 100% accuracy of data transfer. Ten patients completed cognitive interviews, 28 completed evaluation surveys, and 14 completed evaluation interviews at study-end. PROMPT-Care patient acceptability was high-100% (28/28) reported the time to complete the Web-based assessments (average 15 min) as about right, most willing to answer more questions (79%, 22/28 yes), 96% (27/28) found the Web-based assessment easier or same as completing a paper copy, and they valued the self-management resources . Oncology staff (n=5) also reported high acceptability and potential feasibility of the system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and oncology staff found the PROMPT-Care system to be highly acceptable, and the results suggest that it would be feasible to implement it into an oncology setting. Suggested modifications to the patient assessment survey, clinician access to the reports, and system requirements will be made as part of the next stage of large-scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lzylG5A0).

Development and Feasibility Testing of PROMPT-Care, an eHealth System for Collection and Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care: A Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been used widely to screen for depression, anxiety, and symptoms in cancer patients. Computer-based applications that collect patients' responses and transfer them to the treating health professional in real time have the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study will test the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed eHealth system which facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. METHODS: The eHealth system is being developed in consultation with 3 overarching content-specific expert advisory groups convened for this project: the clinical advisory group, technical advisory group, and evaluation advisory group. The following work has already been completed during this phase of the study: the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) eHealth system was developed, patient-reported outcomes were selected (distress, symptoms, unmet needs), algorithms to inform intervention thresholds for clinical and self-management were determined, clinician PRO feedback summary and longitudinal reports were designed, and patient self-management resources were collated. PROsaiq, a custom information technology system, will transfer PRO data in real time into the hospital-based oncology information system to support clinical decision making. The PROMPT-Care system feasibility and acceptability will be assessed through patients completing PROMPT-Care assessments, participating in face-to-face cognitive interviews, and completing evaluation surveys and telephone interviews and oncology staff participating in telephone interviews. RESULTS: Over the course of 3 months, the system will be pilot-tested with up to 50 patients receiving treatment or follow-up care and 6 oncology staff at 2 hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Data will be collected to determine the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, extent of missing data from participants' assessments, acceptability of the eHealth system and usefulness of the self-management resources (via patient evaluation surveys and interviews), and acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting (via oncology staff interviews) at the completion of the pilot phase. CONCLUSIONS: This research investigates implementation of evidence into real world clinical practice through development of an efficient and user-friendly eHealth system. This study of feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed eHealth system will inform the next stage of larger scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. CLINICALTRIAL: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lzylG5A0).

Framing risk: communication messages in the Australian and Swedish print media surrounding the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Australia and Sweden have similar immunisation rates. However, during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic the uptake of immunisation was 60% in Sweden and 18% in Australia. During pandemics, perceptions of risk are largely formed by media communication which may influence the public's response. AIM: The study aimed to compare the differences in how the media framed the 2009 H1N1 pandemic message and the associated public perceptions of risk as expressed through the uptake of vaccinations in Australia and Sweden. METHODS: A qualitative content analysis was conducted on 81 articles from the Australian and Swedish print media: 45 and 36, respectively. RESULTS: The risk of H1N1 was communicated similarly in Australia and Sweden. However, major differences were found in how the Australian and Swedish media framed the pandemic in terms of responsibility, self-efficacy, and uncertainty. In Australia, responsibility was predominantly reported negatively, blaming various organisations for a lack of information, compared to Sweden where responsibility was placed on the community to help protect public health. Furthermore, there was limited self-efficacy measures reported in the Australian media compared to Sweden and Sweden's media was more transparent about the uncertainties of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms the association between the framing of health messages in the media and the public's perception of risk and related behaviour. Governments need to actively incorporate the media into pandemic communication planning.