Assessing the effectiveness of "BETTER Women", a community-based, primary care-linked peer health coaching programme for chronic disease prevention: protocol for a pragmatic, wait-list controlled, type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) programme trains allied health professionals working in primary care settings to develop personalised chronic disease 'prevention prescriptions' with patients. However, maintenance of health behaviour changes is difficult without ongoing support. Sustainable options to enhance the BETTER programme and ensure accessibility to underserved populations are needed. We designed the BETTER Women programme, which uses a digital app to match patients with a trained peer health coach (PHC) who provides ongoing support for health behaviour change after receipt of a BETTER prevention prescription in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness patient-randomised trial. Interested women aged 40-68 years will be recruited from three large, sociodemographically distinct primary care clinics (urban, suburban and rural). Patients will be randomised 1:1 to intervention or wait-list control after receipt of their BETTER prevention prescription. We will aim to recruit 204 patients per group (408 total). Effectiveness will be assessed by the primary outcome of targeted behaviours achieved for each participant at 6 months, consisting of three cancer screening tests (cervical, breast and colorectal) and four behavioural determinants of cancer and chronic disease (diet, smoking, alcohol use and physical activity). Data will be collected through patient survey and clinical chart review, measured at 3, 6 and 12 months. Implementation outcomes will be assessed through patient surveys and interviews with patients, peer health coaches and healthcare providers. An embedded economic evaluation will examine cost per quality-adjusted life-year and per additional health behavioural targets achieved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Women's College Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB), the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre REB and the University of Toronto REB. All participants will provide informed consent prior to enrolment. Participation is voluntary and withdrawal will have no impact on the usual care received from their primary care provider. The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via conference presentations. Deidentified datasets will be shared on request, after publication of results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04746859.

BETTER LIFE- guidelines for chronic disease preventive care for people aged 18-39 years: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: The original 'BETTER' (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40-65 years and a "Prevention Practitioner" (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the 'BETTER HEALTH' approach for younger adults aged 18-39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008-2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee). RESULTS: We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18-39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use. CONCLUSION: We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18-39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

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.

Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

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.